Hi,
>>
>> This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the
>> files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK
>> distributing them as is...
>
>Sort of. Debian requires source for everything that it distributes in
>main. If it were not GPL'd, it would still
Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what
> can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this
> one:
>
> 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual fil
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:59:27 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
> So the real source is a Microsoft Word docuement. However, I suspect
> Debian users would normally "prefer" to edit HTML files, than MS Word
> Documents.
I certainly prefer manually-edited (X)HTML to MS Word Doc, but I don't
know if I would p
"Heretik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi list,
I ITP Tremulous for Debian
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some
license concerns.
I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous,
tremulous-data and tremulous-ser
"Frank Küster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see
what
can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be
this
one:
1) maxd
Hi list,
I ITP Tremulous for Debian
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some
license concerns.
I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous,
tremulous-data and tremulous-server
Here are the licenses :
- The main code is GPL : no problem
- The d
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
>
> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> proble
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> > problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
> > and better than I would expect.
> >
> > Should we file bug reports for these p
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
> problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
> and better than I would expect.
>
> Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better
> way to handle th
Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what
> can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this
> one:
>
> 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files
>
Hi!
I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what
can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this
one:
1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files
2) the GPL asks for the source code (defined as: "pref
Hi all!
I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
and better than I
12 matches
Mail list logo
