Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>
But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wr
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
> origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
> *do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
> perfectly reasonable.
So the FSF coul
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 11:33, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. September 2004 12:28 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > Why not? If all of OOo is LGPL, then the license allows you to
> > distribute under the terms of the GPL, so linking with another GPL
> > library is ok.
>
> Hmm...
Does this mea
Package: figlet
Version: 2.2.1-2; reported 2004-10-05
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Figlet is in main, but does not seem to comply with the DFSG.
Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate.
Please refer to
http://lists.debian.
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:51:01 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for
> various cases. Given that an ideal Free documentation license would
> be GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and
> that any GPL-compatible
Raul Miller wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>>>But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
>>>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt
Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>DFSG 6.
>>
>>Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
>>copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed so
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>No; the problem is that the *work*, meaning the Debian logo, would be
>>non-free, because it would not grant all the rights required by the
>>DFSG. Specifically, you could not take the logo and use it in any way
>>you choose
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1934 +0200]:
> Anyway, as a sidenote I encourage you to find an alternative if
> the licensing problem cannot be solved.
Sure. I doubt there is one though. Then again, I am likely not going
to need all the functionality. So yes, maybe I'll
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>>"These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works
>>contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
>>Texts."
>
> That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I
reassign 251983 libcwd
tags 251983 - upstream
thanks
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to
> Debian's non-free archive,
Moving from main to non-free can and should be done by the maintainer,
and is not a t
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:31:56PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]:
> > We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social
> > Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to
> > provide it. This is
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]:
> We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social
> Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to
> provide it. This is you as the maintainer who should judge that.
I need the package myself.
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:13:20PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]:
> > How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved
> > to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing
> > libcwd along with th
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]:
> How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved
> to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing
> libcwd along with them, too.
Consider removing it? Why?
Anyway, I doubt there is a single p
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Carlo,
>
> I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to
> Debian's non-free archive, where it will enjoy less support. The
> debian-legal team has deemed the QPL to be not DFSG-free, and even
> though I completely
Karl Berry wrote:
> I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi:
>
> Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> notice and this notice are pre
17 matches
Mail list logo
