Re: License advice: LPPL with additional restrictions

2006-03-29 Thread Frank Küster
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> - You inform us that you created a changed version of the files. >> This is only necessary if you want to distribute it to others. > > Phone home clause. Take your pick from DFSG 1, 6 or whatever else > you feel it breaks most. Sorry - I didn't even read

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote: > These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. > I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial > specifications. What's the difference between "full specification for A, which is a subset of B" and "partial specificatio

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-29 Thread MJ Ray
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim, > > for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical > > measure under the relevant definitions presented here so far. > > Which de

Re: FYI: Savannah seems to reject "GPLv2 only" projects

2006-03-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:08:42 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:28:03 + MJ Ray wrote: > > > Long term, hosting it yourself under a distributed RCS and using > > > something like DOAP to keep project metadata seems the best bet. > > > If others

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-29 Thread Raul Miller
On 3/28/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure > > out how [some of] these documents are stored. > > These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. > I see no

Re: License advice: LPPL with additional restrictions

2006-03-29 Thread MJ Ray
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > hope to be able to convince him to drop the additional restrictions > (should he be reachable) - but before I do that I'd like to make sure > that the additional restrictions are in fact a problem, and not only > just an inconvenience, and which

License advice: LPPL with additional restrictions

2006-03-29 Thread Frank Küster
Hi, I just discovered that teTeX contains a LaTeX package "dinbrief" which is licensed under the LaTeX Project Public License, v. 1.1 or later - so it should be okay (1.3 (a?) is DFSG-free). However, there are some additional restrictions in the readme file. I assume that the author only wanted

新しいサイトの紹介です。遊びに来 て下さい♪

2006-03-29 Thread 浦島 桃太郎
突然のメールで失礼致します。GAME REVIEWです。 3月10日にあたらしく開設したサイト「GAME REVI EW」です。主にTVゲームのレビューを掲載しています。 また、ダイエットやクレジットカードなど、様々なサイトへの リンクも繋げておりますので、TVゲームに興味をお持ちでな い方も、よろしければご覧下さい。 http://www11.ocn.ne.jp/~tms55/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI

Re: MPL license

2006-03-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this >> stage. >It is never too late to fix bugs. You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBS