Missed the bug off the CC for this. Sorry.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:34:13 +
From: MJ Ray
To: debian-le...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear
Domenico Andreoli skribis:
> the situation of dwarves-d
ather for users to dismiss or
attackers to spoof.
Could that one be moved to /etc/dtc, please?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.o
r material on the website if
asked, so long as the previous licence(s) also held.
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ema
clone 521448 -1
retitle -1 p3nfs: applet build requires packages which are not in debian
stop
Michal Čihař wrote:
> MJ Ray napsal(a):
> > This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
> > message, while gammu's source does contain source code for
> >
he section of debian-policy is
http://www.fr.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib
The email discussion of gammu's gnapplet.sis and a similar case starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00127.html
It finished with:-
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009
Erik Schanze wrote:
> What should I do?
> Have I move afio to non-free?
Thank you for bringing this question to the list - I was going to do
so, but had not found time yet.
More seriously, the Lachman Associates licence doesn't give any
permission to modify the software, does it?
So, I feel we
Paul Gevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Could you help by explaining what needs to be done
> (if anything) with the current old-stable, stable and testing sources?
> It looks like we should take this seriously, but I fear this is slightly
> above my head. Especially the fact that upstream re
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed
> issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01),
> fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself!
> However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the p
Just rounding off a few loose edges. Stopping for reasons explained
near the end:-
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > For example, a PHPBB service page is about 20k, while PHPBB source is
> > 2.19MiB.
> You have a mighty uninteresting f
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I thank you for your personal view (which will be useful for software
> > where you are a licensor), but this is essentially the same anecdotal
> > advocacy which has been covered in previous discussion
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-11-24 15:06:03.00 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
> > some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
> > you if I
ake, so the bug report was valid.
As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
you if I reopen this bug but downgrade it to wishlist?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and o
Source: yocto-reader
Version: 0.9.3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
yocto-reader is under the AGPLv3 with no clarifications.
Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires any hosting user to provide "access
to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to
every visitor to the w
Peter De Wachter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OpenArena contains a copy of the lcc compiler in the code/tools/lcc
> directory, which does not seem free software as it does not allow
> commercial distribution.
I agree. The early parts make it look like a BSD-style licence, but
the license part sta
These two bugs are being discussed by DPL candidates after
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/03/msg00065.html
and the current DPL has been asked the current status by an SPI
board member, as reported in
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002538.html
One candidate's te
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
> reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
> debian-legal, as this has been discussed to death and I guess someone
> will have more clues than myself.
I think
Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to
> distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? [...]
IIRC we have no current copyright permission for it, even in the browser
sources. So, yes, a problem. Can you ask Mozilla.org whether the logo
is a
Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:06:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since that violates policy, the removal of /usr/bin/git
> >
> > As explained, I do not se
Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since that violates policy, the removal of /usr/bin/git
As explained, I do not see why this violates policy, as the
git shell script offers the git-core functionality.
What other way is there for a neat transition for stable users?
> is documented
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted from policy:
> Two different packages must not install programs with different
> functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
> having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via
> "alternatives" or [...]
I t
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked debian-legal:
> Unfortunately John L Allen is unreachible to clarify the license terms of his
> piece of code [3].
>
> Now, the question is: how long we should wait for nobody claim a copyright
> for
> the code to have it in Public Domain ? [...]
70 yea
Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> a) a proper license should be decided for the website.
>
>I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
>license.
I suggest using a BSD-style licence as default, but the attached one
is not one
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ].
>
> That URL says that you can modify the GPL to create your own license,
> then release your software under that license, just don't call it "GPL"
> anymore. It doesn't say, you can take some work th
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL
> and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being
> invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in
> light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I
The request for more information was returned with the message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
host lookup did not complete: retry timeout exceeded
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t case?
Thanks everyone for your help,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ou know that the statistic is "that wrong".
I think the statistic is questionable, so there should be
verification/substantiation of the statistic, but I don't know
whether it's right or wrong. I think it's prejudging things to
delete the first paragraph as suggested.
Hop
s coming rather soon, I brought this issue to SPI's
> secretarys attention, but SPI board would appreciate some suggestion
> what they should decide about license change.
I see it will be discussed at the board meeting at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2005-10-18.html
Best wishes,
--
As mentioned on debian-legal last month in the thread starting
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00234.html
the JPL terms may have improved, but maybe are still not quite
following DFSG.
Hope that helps whoever is working on this problem,
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email
like those may have similar bugs.
A common solution seems to be to get permission to link to
an APL'd work as an exception. Upstream looks alive. If
they're willing, it may be the simplest fix.
libapache2-mod-ldap-userdir has an exception for OpenSSL already.
Good luck!
--
MJ Ray (slef
but not drscheme-to-run-on-already-installed-mz.
What's the status of this bug? I can't see surviving problems,
but I don't have an system to test this upgrade on (yet).
--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Read more about the iPIX vs Dersch from FFII at
http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/ipix/
The second link (contains patent titles) suggests that there
is clear prior art.
Interactive Pictures appear to be a tn.us corporation - does anyone
nearby know whether any regulations forbid so-called patent
Marco wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
> Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on
> the debian-legal mailing l
33 matches
Mail list logo
