Re: licence for Truecrypt

View: New views

6 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hi! The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. I added it to the wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d How to get a final / official verdict about it? -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Francesco Poli-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Hi! > > The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > > I added it to the wiki. > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d I think you should link to more recent discussions: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html (and the thread that followed) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00130.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > > How to get a final / official verdict about it? I already expressed my personal opinion in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html but that is, well, my own personal opinion, as said... It's true that nobody else added comments to the new License version 2.4, but what I expressed is still my own personal opinion, and nothing else. Please remember my usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a conclusive statement. Moreover, no statement can be final (because some previously unnoticed issue may always be discovered later), or official (since debian-legal is not the decision-making body for Debian, but a sort of advisory board, instead). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Francesco Poli schrieb: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions >> 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. >> >> I added it to the wiki. >> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > I think you should link to more recent discussions: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html > (and the thread that followed) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00130.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > >> How to get a final / official verdict about it? > > I already expressed my personal opinion in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > but that is, well, my own personal opinion, as said... > It's true that nobody else added comments to the new License version > 2.4, but what I expressed is still my own personal opinion, and nothing > else. > > Please remember my usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / > official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a > conclusive statement. > Moreover, no statement can be final (because some previously unnoticed > issue may always be discovered later), or official (since debian-legal > is not the decision-making body for Debian, but a sort of advisory > board, instead). > I do not want to compel someone to do anything. :) FranklinPiat removed everything from the wiki. (see changelog) Forwarded the message also to him. But I think there should be at least any status information on this page. It was already added to the 'unclear' section with 'unclear' status. What was wrong with? Now completely deleting was an action I really can not understand. -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Stephen Gran :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message This one time, at band camp, Michael Reichenbach said: > Hi! > > The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > > I added it to the wiki. > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > How to get a final / official verdict about it? Ask ftp-master. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- \| ,''`. Stephen Gran \| \| : :' : sgran@... \| \| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer \| \| `- http://www.debian.org \| ----------------------------------------------------------------- signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Franklin PIAT :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hello, Foreword : I'm not part of the debian-legal team. I'm just taking care of keeping the wiki clean. I removed the "Truecrypt license" from the page because : * This license is specific to a single package. A bug might me more appropriate to track that. (IMHO). * The state of that license is currently "undecided", it doesn't make sense to put it on "DFSGLicenses", which is a reference page. * Get yourself a proper wikiname : "foo" looks like a spammer account ;) On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 17:13 +0200, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Francesco Poli schrieb: > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > > > >> The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > >> 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > >> > >> I added it to the wiki. > >> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > > > I think you should link to more recent discussions: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html That was a good advice. > > > > There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / > > official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a > > conclusive statement. [..] > I do not want to compel someone to do anything. :) > > FranklinPiat removed everything from the wiki. (see changelog) Forwarded > the message also to him. > > But I think there should be at least any status information on this page. What about keeping the status of the license in : http://bugs.debian.org/364034 > It was already added to the 'unclear' section with 'unclear' status. > What was wrong with? Now completely deleting was an action I really > can not understand. If debian-legal find it appropriate, please undo my change. Sorry for any inconvenience. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Franklin PIAT schrieb: > I removed the "Truecrypt license" from the page because : > * This license is specific to a single package. A bug might me more > appropriate to track that. (IMHO). A bug? On which bug tracker? How to fix it? > * The state of that license is currently "undecided", it doesn't make > sense to put it on "DFSGLicenses", which is a reference page. There are also other licenses listed with state "unclear" or "not DFSG-compatible". I don't see how the TrueCrypt license differs from the other ones. It could fit into one of the three big categories just like other licenses do. -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hi! The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. I added it to the wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d How to get a final / official verdict about it? -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Francesco Poli-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Hi! > > The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > > I added it to the wiki. > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d I think you should link to more recent discussions: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html (and the thread that followed) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00130.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > > How to get a final / official verdict about it? I already expressed my personal opinion in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html but that is, well, my own personal opinion, as said... It's true that nobody else added comments to the new License version 2.4, but what I expressed is still my own personal opinion, and nothing else. Please remember my usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a conclusive statement. Moreover, no statement can be final (because some previously unnoticed issue may always be discovered later), or official (since debian-legal is not the decision-making body for Debian, but a sort of advisory board, instead). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Francesco Poli schrieb: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions >> 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. >> >> I added it to the wiki. >> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > I think you should link to more recent discussions: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html > (and the thread that followed) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00130.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > >> How to get a final / official verdict about it? > > I already expressed my personal opinion in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > but that is, well, my own personal opinion, as said... > It's true that nobody else added comments to the new License version > 2.4, but what I expressed is still my own personal opinion, and nothing > else. > > Please remember my usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / > official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a > conclusive statement. > Moreover, no statement can be final (because some previously unnoticed > issue may always be discovered later), or official (since debian-legal > is not the decision-making body for Debian, but a sort of advisory > board, instead). > I do not want to compel someone to do anything. :) FranklinPiat removed everything from the wiki. (see changelog) Forwarded the message also to him. But I think there should be at least any status information on this page. It was already added to the 'unclear' section with 'unclear' status. What was wrong with? Now completely deleting was an action I really can not understand. -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Stephen Gran :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message This one time, at band camp, Michael Reichenbach said: > Hi! > > The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > > I added it to the wiki. > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > How to get a final / official verdict about it? Ask ftp-master. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- \| ,''`. Stephen Gran \| \| : :' : sgran@... \| \| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer \| \| `- http://www.debian.org \| ----------------------------------------------------------------- signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Franklin PIAT :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hello, Foreword : I'm not part of the debian-legal team. I'm just taking care of keeping the wiki clean. I removed the "Truecrypt license" from the page because : * This license is specific to a single package. A bug might me more appropriate to track that. (IMHO). * The state of that license is currently "undecided", it doesn't make sense to put it on "DFSGLicenses", which is a reference page. * Get yourself a proper wikiname : "foo" looks like a spammer account ;) On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 17:13 +0200, Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Francesco Poli schrieb: > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > > > >> The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > >> 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > >> > >> I added it to the wiki. > >> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d > > > > I think you should link to more recent discussions: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html That was a good advice. > > > > There's no way, AFAIK, to compel debian-legal to provide a final / > > official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a > > conclusive statement. [..] > I do not want to compel someone to do anything. :) > > FranklinPiat removed everything from the wiki. (see changelog) Forwarded > the message also to him. > > But I think there should be at least any status information on this page. What about keeping the status of the license in : http://bugs.debian.org/364034 > It was already added to the 'unclear' section with 'unclear' status. > What was wrong with? Now completely deleting was an action I really > can not understand. If debian-legal find it appropriate, please undo my change. Sorry for any inconvenience. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
	Re: licence for Truecrypt by Michael Reichenbach :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Franklin PIAT schrieb: > I removed the "Truecrypt license" from the page because : > * This license is specific to a single package. A bug might me more > appropriate to track that. (IMHO). A bug? On which bug tracker? How to fix it? > * The state of that license is currently "undecided", it doesn't make > sense to put it on "DFSGLicenses", which is a reference page. There are also other licenses listed with state "unclear" or "not DFSG-compatible". I don't see how the TrueCrypt license differs from the other ones. It could fit into one of the three big categories just like other licenses do. -mr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@... with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...