Re: Font license recommendation

On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote: > At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would > >> provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL i

Bug#155396: ITP: iso-codes -- Collection of ISO code lists and their translations

> Package: wnpp > Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-04 > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: iso-codes > Version : 1.0 > Upstream Author : Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://www.saorleir.com/iso-codes > * License

Re: Font license recommendation

At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would >> provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility >> problem: just design the linker so that it

Re: copyright violation in libflash

Hi Aubin, On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:13:39AM -0500, Aubin Paul wrote: > > Thanks for bring this to my attention; I agree that we should remove the > package, as I > checked the two files and both mention that they are derived from sample > code. I can't > believe I didn't see that; I thought t

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The GPL's definition of source code is: Clause 3 means that if you ship an executable or object code form of a work, you do not need to ship the compiler and kernel source unless you are including the compiler or kernel with the executable. Debian wou

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:57:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 12:47, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > When I sent my ITP on debian-devel today, Moshe Zadka claimed that > > > even distributing maria-viz would be il

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 02:59:17PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is ok to redistribute it by itself; if you distribute it with the > > interpreter (which is the case in Debian), I believe the GPL requires you > > to also distribute the interpreter'

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Aug 04, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:14:59AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between > > having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL > > binary > > on a closed source sys

Re: Font license recommendation

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 17:24, Lars Hellström wrote: > It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is > harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that > a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the > contrary has been obtained,

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is ok to redistribute it by itself; if you distribute it with the > interpreter (which is the case in Debian), I believe the GPL requires you > to also distribute the interpreter's source under the GPL. What clause of the GPL requires you to do this

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 12:47, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > When I sent my ITP on debian-devel today, Moshe Zadka claimed that > > even distributing maria-viz would be illegal. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-2

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 10:14:59AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between > having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary > on a closed source system? It is permissible for libc to be non-fre

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Is it OK to distribute a script, which is > - licencend under GPL. > - intended to be executed by a non-free interpreter. > Background: I'm intending to package maria (ITP at bug #146320), which > is licenced under GPL. Besides the ma

RE: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary on a closed source system? It is permissible for libc to be non-free and a program to use it. The closed system's kernel is for all intents a

Re: GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

On Aug 04, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Is it OK to distribute a script, which is > - licencend under GPL. > - intended to be executed by a non-free interpreter. [..] > When I sent my ITP on debian-devel today, Moshe Zadka claimed that > even distributing maria-viz would be illegal. > > http://lists.debi

GPL-script to be run on a non-free interpreter

Is it OK to distribute a script, which is - licencend under GPL. - intended to be executed by a non-free interpreter. Background: I'm intending to package maria (ITP at bug #146320), which is licenced under GPL. Besides the main tool, called maria, it also contains a script, called maria-vis, whic

Re: copyright violation in libflash

Hi Robert, Thanks for bring this to my attention; I agree that we should remove the package, as I checked the two files and both mention that they are derived from sample code. I can't believe I didn't see that; I thought the only copyright violation was the old header from Mozilla which was re