Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On 20010225T160640-0600, Sam TH wrote: > In that case, I guess Artistic is acceptable. But that is > unfortunate, given that this means that we have diverged from the FSF > analysis, something that I don't think we do elsewhere. We have always done that, since we use a different definition of "fr

Please remove all of JX, ASAP.

2001-02-25 Thread Clay Crouch
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: serious I recently visited to check up on their progress/status, since they are the upstream authors for all of my JX-based packages I found this: . The packages that are c

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:45:20PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > (I'd trim the CC list but it looks like it was intended to be this > long; go figure...) > > On Feb 25, Sam TH wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:55:15PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > > > Whoah whoah. > > > > > > 10.Example

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Chris Lawrence
(I'd trim the CC list but it looks like it was intended to be this long; go figure...) On Feb 25, Sam TH wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:55:15PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > > Whoah whoah. > > > > 10.Example Licenses > > > > The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are exam

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > > >On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > >> I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to > >> distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as

Re: ltmodem (was: Variable in Depends: ??)

2001-02-25 Thread David Schleef
cc'd to debian-legal... On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:31:35PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sunday 25 February 2001 18:23, David Schleef wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:03:25PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > > The ltmodem package copies files from the main Linux source tree, patches > > >

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread John Galt
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: >> I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to >> distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as copying terms >> if placed into the debian/copyright file? >> > >I wo

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:55:15PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:55:54PM -0600, Sam TH wrote: > > and he didn't make it very > > clear at all what you should do if the Artistic License wasn't > > acceptable (which it isn't) > > Whoah whoah. > > 10.Example Licenses

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread John Galt
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:32:20PM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> >> Both of 'em are free. Just to follow what seems to be the authors intent, >> I'd use Artistic though. > >Artistic isn't free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html It is. http://

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:55:54PM -0600, Sam TH wrote: > and he didn't make it very > clear at all what you should do if the Artistic License wasn't > acceptable (which it isn't) Whoah whoah. 10.Example Licenses The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:32:20PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > Both of 'em are free. Just to follow what seems to be the authors intent, > I'd use Artistic though. Artistic isn't free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html sam th [EMAIL P

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to > distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as copying terms > if placed into the debian/copyright file? > I would suspect that what he means is that xod

Re: [Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread John Galt
Both of 'em are free. Just to follow what seems to be the authors intent, I'd use Artistic though. On 25 Feb 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote: >I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to >distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as copying terms >if placed into the

[Steve Lidie ] Re: xodometer licensing

2001-02-25 Thread Aaron Lehmann
I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to distribute xodo under. Is this statement sufficient as copying terms if placed into the debian/copyright file? --- Begin Message --- Aaron Lehmann wrote: > > Hello, > > The Debian GNU/Linux distribution would like to distribute