Hi,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:52:23PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Although /usr/share/doc/tailor/copyright states GPL for tailor package,
> > this is not GPL for sure. --> problem.
>
> This is a problem, though not all that serious. The copyright info
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:55:59 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:41:26AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Or otherwise, povray upstream authors could be persuaded to
> > relicense in a DFSG-free manner, so that we would *gain* one new
> > interesting package for main,
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:17:38 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Or otherwise, povray upstream authors could be persuaded to
> > relicense in a DFSG-free manner, so that we would *gain* one new
> > interesting package for main, rather than *losing* one (that was
> > wrongly plac
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although /usr/share/doc/tailor/copyright states GPL for tailor package,
> this is not GPL for sure. --> problem.
This is a problem, though not all that serious. The copyright info
must be correct.
> This license only gives permission when fee is not charge
Package: tailor
Version: 0.9.19-2
Severity: important
Justification: DFSG 1 violation etc. by including _process.py
Please do not panic, it is easy to fix. :-)
Proposed fix: (in /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/vcpx)
* remove _process.py which cause useless license concern
* possibly eliminate
Andy Teijelo Pérez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that's exagerated. That's just a waste of time and
> resources. What else should be done at build time, make all KDE
> artists repaint and re-photograph all KDE wallpapers? I don't think
> art can always be treated the same way software is t
El Jueves, 19 de Enero de 2006 5:31, Francesco Poli escribió:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>
> I think it should be moved to contrib and ...
> ...graphics should be rerendered
> from its actual source at build time.
I think that's exagerated. That's just a waste of t
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Or otherwise, povray upstream authors could be persuaded to relicense in
> a DFSG-free manner, so that we would *gain* one new interesting package
> for main, rather than *losing* one (that was wrongly placed in main).
> ;-)
povray upstream actually *wants* to change the li
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:41:26AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:53:56 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > I think that KPovModeler was developed with the intention that you
> > have POV-Ray installed. It will work fine without it, but it can only
> > save KPMs and POV file
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:07:42 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Here is version 3; it's also available on gplv3.fsf.org as well.
OK, I'm going to comment here first, so that I can get some feedback
from other debian-legal regulars.
Feel free to comment on my concerns.
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> T
And that's in spite of them being nothing but object code "which the
GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is
part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released."
Riots arose all over the GNU Republic. The Coalition Death To Unfree
Blobs called for
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:53:56 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I think that KPovModeler was developed with the intention that you
> have POV-Ray installed. It will work fine without it, but it can only
> save KPMs and POV files, and at the moment there is no other software
> that can read it.
Proba
12 matches
Mail list logo
