Please, this time, obey the Followup-to to debian-legal. Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I do not want to argue, Yes. Please. Please do not argue before you've read the discussions we already had on this. I don't expect you to find any relevant new points. > and your comment about the possibility > that the PDF file might contain non-free fonts also makes sense. I will > not include the PDF in my package. Judging from the list of fonts included, it should be possible to replace them by similar free fonts (Helvetica instead of Arial, a better choice anyway, URW Courier instead of CourierNew, URW Times instead of TimesNewRoman. > As for the public domain, I thought I was on solid ground because work > made by public servants in the USA is automatically public domain. > However, I realised that the Standford university where the software has > been released is private (correct me if I am wrong), thus the program > can not be in public domain. But it can be put into the public domain, or at least a state that's equivalent in effect. From a short look at the document and the web page, though, it looks as if there's no license at all. This means that we do not have a permission to redistribute that file (nobody has) and *must* remove it ASAP. > I will document this in the copyright file, and ask the upstream author > if he agrees to rephrase his statement. The existing statement for the software is perfect, no need to rephrase anything. The non-existent statement for the Documentation is the problem. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
