Re: Is this license DFSG-free?

Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: >> I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to >> go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it >> pass DFSG 1? > > I don't think so. Also, this license does not

Re: Chemical modelling software

On 21-Aug-00, 14:59 (CDT), Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which segfaulted > under potato). The copyright statement inside their documentation indicates > that "Permission to use, copy, and distribute VIEWMOL in its entirety, for

Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added

We're starting to get off-topic on -legal here, but... I'll definately be using vorbis. In fact, I'm in the planning stages of a software project where I will PREFER encoded audio representations. Vorbis looks like it will be about perfect for me. On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Starner wrote: > On

Re: IMAPD license problem

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > I'm not intimately familiary with US law, but does that principle > really apply when the licencee is in bad faith (as would clearly > be the case here - given that we *know* how UW interprets their > license, we cannot just decide

Re: Chemical modelling software

Drew Parsons wrote: > - viewmol (ftp://ccl.osc.edu/pub/chemistry/software/SOURCES/C/viewmol/) > > viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which > segfaulted under potato). The copyright statement inside their > documentation indicates that "Permission to use, copy, and > distrib

Chemical modelling software

Hi, my name is Drew Parsons, I'm in the queue to become a Debian maintainer and am waiting to be processed. My training has been in theoretical chemistry and therefore I'm interested in having the best available chemical modelling programs in Debian. Currently Debian has rasmol, maintained by Ra

Fwd: ITP: tct (The coroner's toolkit)

Andrew Stribblehill wrote: Could you confirm that the IBM public license is valid and that the below-mentioned mix of licenses is allowable in main? Thanks, Andrew Stribblehill Systems Programmer IT Service, University of Durham, England License: Parts are IBM Public License v1

Re: IMAPD license problem

Scripsit Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Under a provision of contract law valid at least within the US, that's not > quite true. If the clause is ambiguous, any reasonable meaning you as > licensee may derive (of course a court will determine whether or not the > language COULD be construed

Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:00:16AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: > > ...hmm, wonder if Vorbize can do something like VBR yet... > Vorbize and oggenc write VBR files by default. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is this license DFSG-free?

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to > go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it > pass DFSG 1? I don't think so. Also, this license does not explicitly allow modification and redistributi

Is this license DFSG-free?

I want to package something with this license. Is it acceptable to go into main? I'm most concerned with the 2nd paragraph -- does it pass DFSG 1? Thanks, Andrew Stribblehill, Systems Programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England 8<- Copyright 1999 by Dan Farmer.

Re: abcde could move to main if vorbize support added

On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:39:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > > Package: abcde > > Version: 1.1.2-1 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > If support for vorbize was added, abcde could move to main. > > > > (I'm assuming it's in contrib because it depends on a non-free mp3 encoder) > > No, actually