Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?

Bruce et al., David Wiley from OpenContent here. I've been hoping for some discussion like this for quite a while, but have had trouble finding anyone (other than Debian's own Markus Brinkman) willing to take any time for it. Some of the confusion stems from the fact that there are actually two

Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?

From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The first part only allows distribution for money if it's "for use offline". > This forbids distribution for money over a network. Either makes > it non-free. I think this is just like the Artistic license restriction - notice the word "sole". It means

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On 5 Nov 99, at 14:33, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > I wish other copyright law of other countries was as easy to > > access. > > Germany, for example, here: > > http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/ Czech is (or was some time ago) on http://www.krovina.cz/studna/doku

Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?

On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 11:47:13PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > > Hi, > > a new documentation package of min has been rejected by ftpadmin: > > The license's restrictions on distribution for money make it non-free. > > Well, the license is the OpenContent License, see > www.opencontent.

Re: netdate in pd?

Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The original sources for netdate were snarfed from the Simtel-20 archive in > the directory PD?:. They contained no mention of who the > author might be. This version has been changed a little - mainly code > cleanups, and one minor bug-fix. > So does this

Re: [DOM Java bindings] Can a W3C recommandation be free?

Hi, On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > I plan to package the W3C's Java bindings for DOM > . > The recent versions of my XT package > needs it, so either I package it, or "potato" is released

Re: Bug#47845: libdbd-pg-perl nonfree?

On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 12:05:32AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > Package: libdbd-pg-perl > Version: 0.92-1 > > >From the manual page: > > COPYRIGHT >The DBD::Pg module is free software. You may distribute under >the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the >

Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?

* "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ opencontent license ] Joey> The license is DFSG complient unless one of the two optional Joey> clauses at the end are invoked. The text that references the Joey> opencontent license will say if one of those terms is enabled, Joey> they are off b

Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?

Martin Bialasinski wrote: > a new documentation package of min has been rejected by ftpadmin: > > The license's restrictions on distribution for money make it non-free. > > Well, the license is the OpenContent License, see > www.opencontent.org > > I thought (and this is what I remember from a

Message for Ian

I sent these two messages to Ian. I am sending them to him through this list, because mail I send him directly always bounces. Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:32:27 -0700 (MST) From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (message from Ian Jac