In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:58:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the primarily author of the
> DFSG Faq, as listed at the end of the FAQ.
Yes, however mail to that address was bouncing. Apparently it was a
transient problem an
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> > writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software
> > and to help publish
Scripsit Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
(This does not add much, I know, but I felt the cc: to debian-legal
ought to result in some kind of response from us d-l people).
--
Henning Ma
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
> > convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
> > that people put "(c)" in computer program
Package: perl-doc
Version: 5.8.0-18
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi,
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
Here is an extract from the bottom of the manpage:
"Distribution Conditions"
Copyright 1998 The Perl Journal.
When include
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:51:19AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Thanks. I hope there's no chance your 23 July upload to the new package
> queue could be approved:
There's very little chance that anything called "mplayer" could be
approved :P
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> [...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
> convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
> that people put "(c)" in computer programs to assert their copyright.
Actually, the convention is "Cop
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:41, A Mennucc1 wrote:
> sorry
>
> last time there was a discussion, it was mainly on licenses and
> copyrights, and I was so focused on them that I didn't think
> of the CSS code
>
> I will prepare and test an 'mplayer' without the above code
> (a la xine) and come back s
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
> > at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
> > publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
> I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed
> ... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
> at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
> publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
that effect, at least as I read it, and as I un
sorry
last time there was a discussion, it was mainly on licenses and
copyrights, and I was so focused on them that I didn't think
of the CSS code
I will prepare and test an 'mplayer' without the above code
(a la xine) and come back soon
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:56:50PM +1200, Adam Warner wro
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Even if I'm right, "fairly close" does not necessarily mean "identical",
> and, frankly, I think the whole thing is getting a bit silly. Having (c) in
> there might, or might not, be considered "circle in a C" if you have only
> ASCII to work with, by some
Sorry about that. The mail server I use crashed, and during
restoration the sysadmin turned on the SMTP server before restoring
the accounts, unceremoniously bouncing days of incoming queued email.
I should be reachable again. And if anyone wants a relaxing job as
sysadmin of a friendly departme
Adam Warner wrote:
I'm please to see what has been done Andrea. I believe the copyright
file can be improved by these completely unofficial suggestions
(suggestions start with *):
This package was first debianized by * TeLeNiEkO * [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:24:04 +0100.
Or
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Since the FSF felt that publishers could not use the GNU GPL for
> printed documentation, they adopted the GFDL for their manuals, to
> allow printed publication under terms they felt publishers would find
> acceptable. (The correctness of their re
It has been pointed out on debian-devel that your mplayer package
includes DVD Content Scrambling System decoding!:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01827.html
(Refer libmpdvdkit2/*css*)
I hope you understand how serious this is and how many problems you
would have
There's also:
15. Q: Why are almost all these "dual" licenses dualed with the GNU
GPL?
... QPL is under GNU/Qt ...
It doesn't make much sense, I think the author means something like "Qt
is under GPL/QPL". :-)
--
Romain FRANCOISE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | When we were kids, we hated
[Barak Pearlmutter's mail comes back no matter how I send it,
so I am posting to the list]
The FAQ is very good. Here are some suggestions for further
improvement.
> 26. [...]
> OSS was also meant to sound more professional and hence
> more attractive to businesses.
You might also mention after
18 matches
Mail list logo
