Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom > depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not > programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify > freely a standard like RFCs) Nonsense. You know w

debian-legal review of licenses

2004-01-24 Thread Daniel Quinlan
As an observer of both the Debian and Apache licensing discussions surrounding the development of the Apache 2.0 license, I wanted to make a suggestion regarding the Debian legal review of licenses. It seems like groups like the ASF want to work with Debian when revising licenses. However, while

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Andreas Tille
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Niklas Vainio wrote: > The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html This is a good effort. As a maintainer of three non-free packages (molphy, treetool, phylip) I can assure you that I regularly try to contact the authors of these programms. For the first tw

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Kenneth Pronovici
[I'm subscribed to -devel but not -vote or -legal, so please CC appropriately.] > I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages > currently in non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give > suggestions. Perhaps this page can help in the discussion about > removing non-

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 24, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[mrouted] >If anyone actually cares, I may be able to get this relicensed and am >willing to at least try. I'm mildly surprised that anyone is still using >this. Two weeks ago I opened #227146 but the maintainer did not reply: The OpenBSD

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Mathieu Roy
Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in > non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps > this > page can help in the discussion about removing non-free. > > Also included is explanation

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-24 Thread Mathieu Roy
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In linux.debian.legal, Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether >> some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely >> because of the license or what kind of cha