Re: Free Art License

Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that > > > is DFSG-free. > > > > I believe that it is. > > If you do, could you plea

Re: Bug#365194: Fwd: Re: [NONFREE-DOC] RFC1459, 2810-2813: IRC (Internet Relay Chat).

On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:19:08 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:41:28PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:55:55 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > > Do I need to get the copyright holder of the documents to > > > relicense it under the GPL? It seems clear to

Re: Tremulous packages

On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:12:40 +0200 Heretik wrote: > - About the datas : > - Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say > the > GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias > authors and making the license change requires contacting all of them > and they

Re: Re: Tremulous packages

- About the datas : - Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say the GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias authors and making the license change requires contacting all of them and they don't see the point of doing this. Though, they told they will c

Re: Re: Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* andother codecs.

> So given my idiocy I'm going to leave that detective work to someone > else. I think the general picture is slightly more clear than opaque now > though. > > MWSBell I mean with respect to looking in packages to find out if they have a coder or a decoder. So, we have a document that supports

Re: Bug#365194: [NONFREE-DOC] RFC1459, 2810-2813: IRC (Internet Relay Chat).

Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were > not made by some IETF process. > > rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc > source package. Understood, but it seems that RFC 2810-2813 may have been improved by the

Re: Packages containing RFCs

Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: >>> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC >>> are (I believe) in the public domain. > >> Public doma