Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have approached the GMP developers both on the GMP list and
> privately. It turns out that the copyright is assigned to FSF so they
> have no authority (or so they claim) to change the license. I was
> advised to contact FSF about it.
Please ask them what
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
> > > > prohibited.
> > >
> > > Only if these copies are are mad
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
> misleading) credit?
"kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and others"
> Start from a troublesome license and patch it hard so that it is
> `forced' to meet the DFSG?
I don't
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:53 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On the other hand, "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian
> > kernel team, based on the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds and others"
> > seems to be accurate credit, doesn't it?
>
> It's an arguably accur
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:57:35 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian. It
> > requires keeping the source around for every binary for at least six
> > mont
"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > For example, GMP has Front-Cover Text
>>
>> > A GNU Manual
>>
>> > and Back-Cover Text
>>
>> > You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software
>>
>> > and no invariant sections. Must I really throw this documen
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
>
>You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
>reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
^^
[...]
>
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 01:08:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > This implies that a document with no invariant sections, but with
> > one-sentence front- and back-cover sections does not meet the DFSG?
> > Is that Debian's pos
O Domingo, 26 de Marzo de 2006 ás 20:57:35 +0200, Mike Hommey escribía:
> The GPL does require something similar.
Not exactly. The GPL requires you to provide source alongside binary; when
you stop offering the binary, you may stop offering the source. However,
under the MPL, you must go on offe
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> > > Looking at
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> > Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> > non-free" mails.
>
> It is indeed
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
> > > the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
> > > with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
> non-free" mails.
It is indeed non-free.
> So, I have some packages in NEW that are MP
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
non-free" mails.
So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
current way to go? Reject, accept?
(Hopefully not a "check every package if it has ", l
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
> > > > a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be availa
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
> > > a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
> >
> > The copying to the DRM-controlled media see
> From: Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Bug#353462: ttf-dejavu: license prohibits advertising with
> Bitstream name - description uses them
> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So...
> - is this "advertising" at all
I think that's unclear. I don't think so, bu
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Frank said:
> > assume a document licensed under GFDL, with no invariant sections (and
> > ...) has a front cover text (like "A GNU Manual") and a back cover text
> [...]
> > What should the developers do in order to make it DF
18 matches
Mail list logo
