Re: Patents on encoders in Europe

lementation is not violating such a patent. Is that > correct? I would say that the current situation neither permits pure alghritms to be patented. Have you time and money to prove that through a trial? ;-) thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

Francesco Poli wrote: Hi Thomas! ciao Franceso I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? [...] The main point you seem to miss is

Re: Creative Commons license summary (version 4)

but our licenses are not intended for software, thus the DFSG are irrelevant". Then they will read [...] I am not representative of CC in any form, but I confirm what Francesco says. Me and him had the same discussion some mail before. ;-) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

st free (BY-SH). On the second category are we focusing to find out some dfsg compliance ;-) But to get this is necessary to fix the "software-different-meaning-issue". thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative Commons Italy staff, regarding your draft summary. Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was hoping to talk about debian-legal's proposed license fixes, but, s

Re: Keeping track of DSFG-free and non-free licenses

he list's archives for some pointers. I don't follow the d-legal discussions, just wanna mention that I would be pleased to see an entry on this license list of the RPSL (see [1]) provided with a `free' label. [1] https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl Thomas

RPSL and DFSG-compliance

your informative answers. Thomas [RPSL: https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl]

Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance

elix stuff into main. Thanks, Thomas

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

ons why I use this account. (perhaps a reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would get a different response) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net

Re: Helix Player under GPL (was Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance)

uded in > either main or contrib. > > I don't know what the dependencies are, or if there are any dependencies > that would prevent it from being in main. Thomas, is enough of the helix > player code GPL'd that we can include it in main, regardless of what we > con

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

can someone detail where we send this and what we should say? perhaps spi-general? On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:27:08PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > How about we just e-mail SPI and bug them to change the license. Screw > this. This is unacceptable.

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compa

License requirements for DSP binaries?

for a separate license for the DSP files? -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

editor we don't have? Possibly; but I suspect that these files contain binaries, not source code. > Has anyone asked IBM yet? I wrote once got no reply. I have just written again to the guys who ported the driver to Linux. -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: how (not) to write copyright files

Peter Palfrader wrote: > when reviewing several NMs' packages I came accross many broken > copyright files in recent weeks. Upon investigation I found that many > (many!) copyright files in the archive are not really any better. The example of how copyright files should not like has an unsurprisin

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

Maybe we could get the boot-sector code declared "OK to use" by Apple? It would be a "hack the system" kind of thing, but I suppose technically they wouldn't have to release the copyright on the source code for the boot sector, just the derived sequence of binary bits. Indeed, Apple may have

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

Here's a thought. First some background: Last night, just to prove it could be done, I succeeded (first try) in using BootX under MacOS9 on an OldWorld PowerMac G3 (beige mini-tower) to load and run the debian-installer kernel and initrd downloaded from:

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

Sven Luther wrote: > Rick wrote: > > Now the part of debian-installer that died on me last night has an > > easy fix: Simply do not install any boot loader at all for that > > subarchitecture. > > Rick, Quik can easily be used to boot from CD, no problem, sadly it > cannot be used to boot from

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

o be in M68k machine language, not PowerPC. Hope that helps! Rick On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 02:32 AM, Sven Luther wrote: On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 07:00:06PM -0500, Rick Thomas wrote I'll do whatever I can to help with testing. No problem. If you feel like disassembling the miboot

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, at 10:47 AM, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:56:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Google "macintosh boot block" turns up official Apple inform

Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

I just had an interesting conversation with an Apple developer (Apple employee) regarding the legal status of the boot sector for oldworld Macs. He pointed out that Darwin runs (and boots) on (at least) the beige G3, and that's oldworld. I don't know anything about Darwin except that it's

Re: reiser4 non-free?

hat, or about what is >>> fair, ask. (Last I spoke with him Richard was contemplating how best >>> to address the fair crediting issue in the next GPL version.) This appears to contradict that: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=richard+stallman+reiser&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT

data on the consultants page

ing services in any form is not wanted." Of course this webpage is already copyrighted by SPI, but I'm wondering if the potential note would comply with the license of the website or if there is any other problem/solution. Please Cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Thomas Huriaux --

Re: data on the consultants page

s less legal than it already is. Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux --- Begin Message --- On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:02:08PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > Do you still have a copy of this spam, so that I can forward it to > debian-legal? yes: (because of the `linkedin' stuff, I thought first

Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs

ial creative content, not just "facts". -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

license of cstex / cslatex

t read the appendix). Questions: - is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in an appendix? - is this a "free software" license in the FSF definition? - is this license free enough to allow an inclusion of the software into debian? Regards, T

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available

romised that > new versions would "be similar in spirit to the present version", see > GPLv2, section 9.) and greatly weakens the copyleft. true - since it is against the spirit of GPLv2 it automatically makes it impossible to invoke the remainder of section 9 ("you have the

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available

nuisance that I find with various packages putting GPL licenses on non-GPL programs which I maintain. This will just add another twist to it. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

License of examples in glibc info docs

I'm trying to find out whether I can use code from the glibc info documentation in a GPLed project (I'm trying to make a feature fix for xvnc4viewer). I can't seem to find any information about this either in the documentation itself, or in the archives of glibc-bugs or debian-legal, or Google

Object Management Group redistributable files

aligned on CORBA 2.3 whereas JacORB is on 2.5. That would mean lowering CORBA compliance but would give us a DFSG-free Java ORB) Thanks, Thomas [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=349540 [2] ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ptc/02-01-02.zip [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/

Re: Object Management Group redistributable files

t fulfill the DFSG, I could still > > patch > > JacORB so that it only use GNU classpath org.omg files, which are > > aligned on CORBA 2.3 whereas JacORB is on 2.5. That would mean > > lowering CORBA compliance but would give us a DFSG-free Java ORB) > > A DFSG-free non-recen

GPL but some author's demand ...

hor's approval, some kind of informal agreement ... So, should I consider this software as "free" to DFSG's terms and package it for main, or do I need the author to remove this condition ? Thanks very much for your advice, [ Please Cc: me as I am not subscribed to the l

Re: TeX files in etc

ree versions of the pattern files in the near future, since the user groups usually have a strong interest in having free pattern files for TeX. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: TeX files in etc

nse stuff is resolved. At almost any time, I can make a beta release with my current snapshot... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Crown copyright and bible-kjv

A question I'm curious about: /usr/doc/bible-kjv/copyright and /usr/doc/bible-kjv-text/copyright say: : The copyright for the King James Version text of the Bible is expired : since the translation was done in 1611 under King James the first of : Great Britain. Do we have anyone who can confirm

Re: Crown copyright and bible-kjv

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Walter Landry wrote: > Thomas Thurman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A question I'm curious about: > > > > /usr/doc/bible-kjv/copyright and /usr/doc/bible-kjv-text/copyright say: > > > > : The copyright for the King James Version

Re: TeX files in etc

il, or could no longer be contacted). 15 other packages have been given a free software license. The teTeX-beta from 2002-05-30 no longer contains any of the packages with a known problematic license. I am now working towards a new stable teTeX release and I don't think that we have to wait

Re: Summary

Martin Schulze schrieb am 22.07.: > http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html > > I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would > like the advice to be correct. Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b): b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to gi

Re: Summary

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > This is always the easier way. Just giving source right out is always > easier than fretting about the written offer clause. And since CDs > are so bloody cheap, it's trivial. Heck, why not just always ship > both? CDs are bloody cheap only

SGI Free Software license B

original HTML (and PostScript) versions ? I've already asked SGI for an ASCII version of their license, or at least the ability to create an ASCII version for inclusion in the copyright file. (I haven't heard back yet.) Thanks, PS: I'm also still looking for a mentor. :-) -- Thomas Wout

Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality

o the opposite. Thanks for the well written rant. -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

trusted with that task. > I think the authors should be the ones to decide how to list > the credits. Any end user should of course be free to delete > all the credits he wants to. It is becoming clearer that your software is not DFSG-free. -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

such sections to promote software freedom. Debian is not willing to do the same. Each organization will pursue its own vision of freedom even though their visions are different. Documents with invariant sections will go in "non-free", but this shouldn't prevent Debian and the FSF fro

Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works

hy not just reference the FSF page? If you have quibbles with the FSF definition, you could submit patches to the FSF. Thanks -- Thomas

Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'

e proprietary is the format you want to use, simply convert it into that format. You are happy. > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I know of one thorny problem in this area: many graphics are distributed >> as .png or .jpg files, even though their creator probab

Re: Defining 'preferred form for making modifications'

crypted form of S then R is not the preferred form unless the key is also provided. How would we state this requirement? Do we require the licensee to provide tools for generating *all* forms of the program in his possession so that we can choose the one we prefer? That seems too burdensome. However, I can't think of a weaker requirement that doesn't allow the licensee off the hook too easily. Enough for now. Thanks for the good feedback. -- Thomas Hood

Re: DFSG FAQ (draft)

known unknowns. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. To these immortal words of D. Rumsfeld, we need only add: Having been discovered, the unknowns are no longer unknown, but have become known knowns. And this causes us to have doubts. There are things that we know we doubt, and things that we doubt we know, and ... -- Thomas Hood

Suggested small improvements to the (already excellent) DFSG FAQ

acturers' traditionally refers to an industry, not to a profession. You could say 'coal miners' or 'hatters'. > 29. [...] > The name is a bit of a joke, as the term comes from the > Four Freedoms Speech delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt > in which he ... I suggest: The term 'four freedoms' is a play on words used by the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a speech in which he ... -- Thomas Hood

Re: Fwd: Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

On 1999-11-19 11:39:14 -0600, Jeremy Blosser forwarded a message from debian-legal to me. In it, JHM Dassen wrote: > Thomas is a Debian user; I have seen no indication he's against the > current mutt in main. Frankly, I don't really care about this. The Debian project wil

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

your immediate concern spans > 20 countries). Thomas

Re: Final text of GPL v3

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say > about this clause and its interpretation. sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client, and depending on the context will contradict themselves. -- Thomas E.

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

the objectionable persons who contribute to this thread. regards. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

not an example (unless you're intending to show a case where FSF allows itself to do things that it forbids others ;-) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

x27;t forbid anyone to use GPL with an > OpenSSL exception. That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can provide such an example, there's something to discuss. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invi

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What kind of example are you looking for? The example that you failed to provide in the posting to which I responded. (let's not get sidetracked) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSU

Re: GPL photographies, eg for backround

On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote: > Firstly, -curiosa is the wrong list for your post, see the description here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/ Ooops... I expected "unexpected things", not funny ones, sorry! I suppose a better place had been "debian-desktop". Anyway, as the conten

enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

? greetings thomas - -- # Thomas Stegbauer https://keyserver1.pgp.com/vkd/submitsearch.event?searchcriteria=tho...@stegbauer.info # PGP Fingerprint: C5B5 BDBD 6607 A9DF E545 0EC5 9DDF 9749 BD05 808A -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http

Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build

sion 3 are compatible with debian's policy and *dreaming* it would make it into debian lenny and a half ;) *end dreaming* greetings thomas Am 04.01.2009 17:48, schrieb Kern Sibbald: > Hello, > > The current released version (2.4.x) series under an interpretation that > OpenSSL is n

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Yes, it's this topic again. I've just had a short mail exchange with crockford himself. His final answer: "If you cannot tolerate the license, then do not use the software." Could you please give me a definitive Yes or No for the below license? Best regards, Thomas Koch

recommendation for packaging license

t as short as possible. So an ideal answer would be just a template section I could copy and paste in my debian/copyright! Thank you, Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/copyright-format/1.0 Upstream-Name: sbinary Source: https://github.com/harrah/sbinary Upstream-Co

Is the IETF / Debian discussion resolved?

ht to modify the text is required." - Is my interpretation correct that this means RFCs can not be modified and redistributed and thus are not DFSG-free? (Please CC me in replies.) Thank you, Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org

3 questions around source of GPL images

py the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server"). Thanks for taking the time to read thus far. I'm waiting your answer to enlighten me as to what I should do to respect all the license and DFSG requirements. Best regards, Thomas Preud&#

Re: 3 questions around source of GPL images

t; DFSG requirements. > > Thank you for taking the time to treat this issue seriously. Thanks both of you to reply me so quickly. So what I'm going to do is include the SVG for all the icons which stayed unmodified. For the modified image the source is the png image themselves. Anyway,

Re: 3 questions around source of GPL images

Le mardi 20 mars 2012 05:55:19, vous avez écrit : [SNIP] > > > Is it supposed to be the preferred form for the author. If it's the > > user then it gets a bit complicated because it could vary from one > > user to another. > > Theoretically, it can vary. But in most cases it should be clear. For

Re: 3 questions around source of GPL images

Le mardi 20 mars 2012 14:39:14, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit : > > In this case of course. But I checked quickly in oxygen-icons package and I > didn't see a rule to construct the png from the svg (although I could just > have missed it). It's just that there is a SVG

Re: 3 questions around source of GPL images

Le mardi 20 mars 2012 22:54:34, Ben Finney a écrit : > "Thomas Preud'homme" writes: > > Le mardi 20 mars 2012 14:39:14, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit : > > > But I checked quickly in oxygen-icons package and I didn't see a > > > rule to constr

A trademark add-on to the AGPL license

nal source code stays unmodified in the source package. Anyway, what is for sure, is that it makes it more difficult than a normal, unmodified, AGPL license. Would you consider removing such AGPL "add-on"? I don't think it's needed to protect your trademark. Look at the BSD-3-clause

Re: Advice regarding deleted images on Commons (tarot deck)

en Oh nice, thanks for all the links. Yes I'm still in research for a few more month. I'll look into it. Thanks again for the help. Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Advice regarding deleted images on Commons (tarot deck)

W. Jérôme, can you confirm? Anyway, thanks a lot Bastien for your help on how to find more information in Paris. Although I didn't try it yet, your help was really appreciated. Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Unteralterbach visual novel

Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: > As far as I understand it, in Germany, for a text / recording / drawing > to be a criminal matter, it must depict actual abuse – meaning a child > has to be abused for the document to be created. That's not quite correct. Accoding to German law, it's a misdemeanour

Bug#874295: Not a bug

tware like web browser which download and run proprietary javascripts without any warning. So unless someone point me a clear justification I will close this bug as invalid for now. Regards, Thomas Pierson signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." > > More questions follow. > > Thomas Preud'homme writes: > > ultracopier's source code has a license check when built in ultimate > > mode. However the source code is readily availab

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

Hi, Thank you Ian and Dmitry for the feedback, On lundi 19 février 2018 15:07:18 GMT Ian Jackson wrote: > Thomas Preud'homme writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?"): > > The questions I was asking in the origina

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?

Le 2018-06-13 13:30, Ian Jackson a écrit : Florian Weimer writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?"): Thomas Preud'homme: > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are: > > - Is a non-ultimate bui

"freenginx" open source package and "nginx" from F5 open source, potential conflict?

stream), may I get the opinion of debian-legal on whether there's any copyright or trademark violation concerns that exist before I pursue getting this into Debian? Thomas Ward Debian Maintainer for multiple packages Ubuntu Core Developer [1]: https://mailman.ngin

Re: Re: "freenginx" open source package and "nginx" from F5 open source, potential conflict?

or such. I'll keep watch on this and see what chaos is coming. Thanks for the opinions, though. I have my own lawyers I can ask but I don't want to keep making them do freebies for me with regards to consulting. Thomas

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

right to put under GPL's terms. > > On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:22:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> No, it says I may only *distribute* it under such a license. > > Section 1 says "You may copy and distribute..." Yes, it does, but some of the requirement

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if > the original work were in the public domain The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point. In general, choice-of-law and "you must obey the laws of Kaz

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> volumes > > Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just > arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days old. > > If you're really chu

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which >> > I've overlooked? If so, please quote this. > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute mod

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

mmon english). > > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Wha? An appropriate copyright notice is along the lines of "Copyright >> (c) 1984-2004 Richard Stallman," as might plausibly appear on much GNU >> software. It imposes no

Re: IBM Public License (again)

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled > this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who > wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the > software." Absolutely. I don't see why

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

e and >> > you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL >> > demands (for example, you have the right to give all others GPLed rights >> > to this work). > > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:

Re: sendmail X license (fwd)

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > "This license is governed by California law" >> >> > > OK. >> >> > > "and both of us >> > >    agree th

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Let's go for emacs and openssl. If there is no distribution of >> > emacs+openssl, then there is no problem. Are you asserting that this >> > is the case? > > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:07:39PM -040

Re: sendmail X license (fwd)

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you have a citation? I don't see how this could possibly work. I > could see that a tort happens in place X that is decided in a court in > place Y, but I don't see how you're going to get courts in one place > to familiarize themselves with the law

Re: Cronyx Tau-ISA obfuscated driver

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Free/non-free? (Only an academic interest, I did not use this driver > yet.) Having checked the licenses on the files in the Tau-PCI distribution, many of them appear to be free. But the obfuscated files, such as cpddk.c, have the license: "All R

Re: DFSG#10

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices >stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > I don't think revision control logs can possibly satify it; it specifically > says that the modified files mus

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or > just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used? > The wording is unclear to us, sorry." But those are the same thing. Copyright attaches to the

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under the terms of the GPL. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAI

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

"Benjamin Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single >> work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't >> be distributed because

Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or > # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the > # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for > # inclusion in the work. This is a GPL-incompatible res

Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches > to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the > condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing > the patches could not be consider

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see >> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public >> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus, while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It is always beneficial to receive software under a free license. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus, >> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It >>

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any >> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one >> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how. > > What do you mean? In order to gain t

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jun 8, 2004, at 14:56, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant >> win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a >> derivative of neither. > > That leads to even wei

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:20:57AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >> FOO is and always was a derivative work of MS Windows. It was >> provably such until Wine added that function; after that, it's much >&g

Re: oaklisp: contains 500kB binary in source

Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Barak Pearlmutter wrote: >> source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a >> relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed > Java pr

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >