To further underline what I have been saying, I object to any of my
(currently embarrassingly minor) contributions to the Debian web page
to be licensed under the terms of the proposed "Debian Free
Documentation License" or any other license which has been specially
drafted for the Debian web page
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:47:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
>
> > Copyright 1997-2006 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. All rights
> > reserved.
>
> Is this correct? Have all contributors assigned copyright to SPI?
Contributor assignment and the lice
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:40:11AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The only change I made to it was substituting "FreeBSD Documentation
> > Project" for "Debian Project".
>
> You've sent two totally different licenses to the list so far; I was
> refering specifically to the license which was attac
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
> Copyright 1997-2006 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. All rights reserved.
Is this correct? Have all contributors assigned copyright to SPI?
>2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs, converted
>to HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> > license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> > custom license is not somet
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially
> not without serious th
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:22:53AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> > license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> > custom
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:56:30 -0600 Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:48 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> > license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> > custom license is not something th
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:48 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT
> license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A
> custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially
> not without serious thought
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
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from the
> OPL (non DFSG-free) to some other license (DFSG-free). As it is, the
> current content is not GPL compatible (so it cannot be reused, for
> example, in documentation p
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:37:43 +0200 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > >
> > >I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is
> > >such a license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation
> > >licens
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> >I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
> >license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation license [3] and
> >explicitely mentions translations. In our case (the website) the
> >'
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 01:03:19AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I agree that the GNU GPL v2 would be a perfectly reasonable choice for
> the Debian website.
> Several other GPLv2-compatible licenses are good choices too, however.
I'd rather use a simpler license for text content it is more under
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:09:15 -0500 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña uttered the following:
[...]
> >
> > a) a proper license should be decided for the website.
> >
> > I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
> > license. It is bas
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:12:16 +0200 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was reviewing the status of #238245 ("Debian web site is licensed
> under the OPL which is not considered DFSG-free") and see that there
> have been no actions since October last year and no discussio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 19.04.2006 um 13:12 schrieb Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
e) from here on access to the CVS of the website should be given after
clearly stating (and getting and agreement) that any and all
contributions
to the CVS, unless specified ot
On 19 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña uttered the following:
> In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from the
> OPL (non DFSG-free) to some other license (DFSG-free). As it is, the
> current content is not GPL compatible (so it cannot be reused, for
> example, in doc
Hi everyone,
I was reviewing the status of #238245 ("Debian web site is licensed under the
OPL which is not considered DFSG-free") and see that there have been no
actions since October last year and no discussion at debian-www.
In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from th
19 matches
Mail list logo
