Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

2004-01-26 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An internal function call is not an API, and it is reasonable to > > expect the law (as applied by courts with a clue, assuming that such > > courts exist, yada yada) to treat them differently. > OK. Are you still ta

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

2004-01-26 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) > >> It concerned E-Lisp APIs. If you call cons or even unwind-protect, >> that's clearly not copyrightable. But if you call >> gnus-agent-cat-downloadable-faces, that's an internal function >> call > > A

Re: debian-legal review of licenses

2004-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-01-25 16:40:38 + Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's two and neither has authority to provide *advance approval* for a new license. [...] If -legal agree the licence is free, then I suspect ftpmaster is unlikely to bounce it when shown the discussion. If it gets in

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-26 Thread Sven Luther
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:22PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > 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

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-26 Thread Sven Luther
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:48:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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 l

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

2004-01-26 Thread Sven Luther
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote: > 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. BTW, maybe

Re: ckermit: license advice

2004-01-26 Thread Ian Beckwith
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:40:28PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I know what they are gettting at, the wording is so big commercial > > unix vendors have to pay. Is there a way to say this while remaining > > DFSG-free? > > No. (If there was, it w