Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:56, martin f krafft wrote: > [please CC me on replies] > > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, > or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may > not." > > 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/ >

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1734 +0200]: > I concur with Santiago on this. Alright, I give in. It has been changed. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] my other comput

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Santiago Vila
martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]: > > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a > > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program > > distributed with such license can be part of Debian. > > I a

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 04:32:21PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > martin f krafft wrote: > > [please CC me on replies] > > > > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, > > or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may > > not." > > > > 1.

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]: > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program > distributed with such license can be part of Debian. I am the author ;^> > You can't lice

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:35:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:56:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > [please CC me on replies] > > > > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, > > or distribute this under the same terms. Those who

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:56:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > [please CC me on replies] > > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, > or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may > not." > > 1. http://www.debian.org/socia

Re: is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread Santiago Vila
martin f krafft wrote: > [please CC me on replies] > > "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, > or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may > not." > > 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/ > > > This is kinda meta-DFSG and kind

is this DFSG?

2002-09-22 Thread martin f krafft
[please CC me on replies] "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may not." 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/ This is kinda meta-DFSG and kinda not. it has me confused. -- m

Re: Accepted oneko 1.2.sakura.5-1 (i386 source)

2002-09-22 Thread Steve Dunham
Oohara Yuuma wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:06:17 -0400, Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Changes: oneko (1.2.sakura.5-1) unstable; urgency=low . * This version adds: sakura, tomoyo, and bsd daemon graphics. BSD daemon is not free in the DFSG sense. Ahh, I was wondering about that

Re: Accepted oneko 1.2.sakura.5-1 (i386 source)

2002-09-22 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:06:17 -0400, Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Changes: > oneko (1.2.sakura.5-1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* This version adds: sakura, tomoyo, and bsd daemon graphics. BSD daemon is not free in the DFSG sense. -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian deve