Re: GFDL'ed documents with Front Cover text

2006-03-28 Thread Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >If so, I expect it will be more >efficient if we can approach the FSF for a blanket license change. No; from what we can tell, RMS is personally blocking even the simplest and most obvious license changes, and nobody with authority in the FSF will go up against him, alt

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Nathanael Nerode
> 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? Reject, unless the authors have announced relicen

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Walter Landry
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where > > > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could > > > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Raul Miller
(I think this sub-thread is heading off on a tangent, I've cut a bunch of material which seems to lead nowhere significant. If I cut something important, please feel free to correct me.) On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And, I'll grant that the concept of "copy and distribute" is

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Raul Miller
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: > > I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the > > context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been > > specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the l

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:04:50 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Joerg Jaspert: > > > > > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats > > > the current way to go? Reject, accept? > > > > Accept. Debian currently distributes qu

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Walter Landry
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Joerg Jaspert: > > > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the > > current way to go? Reject, accept? > > Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed > under the MPL. Quite a few? What packages are

Re: Debian packaging and (possible) Eterm license violations

2006-03-28 Thread Ed Hill
Hi Michael and Justin, Thank you for your help! I've submitted a bug (#359707) and will follow its progress. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PRO

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joerg Jaspert: > So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the > current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed under the MPL. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this stage. -- To UNSUBSCR