On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:24:23PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html, and it basically says that rights to
> run or modify the software, but not distribute patches to it. This might
> be acceptable for non-free, except that debian packaging is basically
> a patch.
I
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 20001210
I have announced my intention to adopt hx, and have found several
problems in the process.
I quote the copyright:
Copyright (C) 1991 asf, asf.
hx is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Publ
Hi, debian-legal list!
Some months ago, I have bought a Debian distribution from a German
company called LinuxLand. Now I've noticed some strange things about
it:
The six official CDs are labelled as suggested by Debian, however,
there is a strange third line:
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 r0 >>
On Dec 09, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 01:00:10PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > ncftp 3.0.2 comes under something called the "Clarified" Artistic
> > License. It looks DFSG-free, but I'm not certain. Here's the text:
> [..]
>
> I wish people would adopt thie clarified licen
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 01:00:10PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> ncftp 3.0.2 comes under something called the "Clarified" Artistic
> License. It looks DFSG-free, but I'm not certain. Here's the text:
This looks like a tremendous improvement over the original Artistic
License. I see nothing tha
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 01:00:10PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> ncftp 3.0.2 comes under something called the "Clarified" Artistic
> License. It looks DFSG-free, but I'm not certain. Here's the text:
There doesn't look to be any changes that would affect DFSG-freeness. In
fact, you might be abl
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 06:31:36PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Is it OK to package software (a standalone tool, no libraries) that has
> the Q Public Licence, version 1? I'm aware of the incompatibility issue
> of QPL and GPL that led to the exclusion of KDE 1 from debian. Am I right
> to assume t
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 01:00:10PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> ncftp 3.0.2 comes under something called the "Clarified" Artistic
> License. It looks DFSG-free, but I'm not certain. Here's the text:
[..]
I wish people would adopt thie clarified license.. Based on the wdiff,
it's a vast improv
ncftp 3.0.2 comes under something called the "Clarified" Artistic
License. It looks DFSG-free, but I'm not certain. Here's the text:
---
The Clarified Artistic License
Preamble
The intent of this document is to state the conditions under whi
Is it OK to package software (a standalone tool, no libraries) that has
the Q Public Licence, version 1? I'm aware of the incompatibility issue
of QPL and GPL that led to the exclusion of KDE 1 from debian. Am I right
to assume that there is no problem for a QPL licenced software that is not
a libr
10 matches
Mail list logo
