On 6/2/06, Jordan Abel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you omit the preamble and still use the license as the GPL
(including redistributing works that were already licensed under the
GPL, including referring to it as the GPL, etc)?
If so, debian has no legitimate reason for making the preamble an
On 6/1/06, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The GPL is not "completely unmodifiable", you just have limitations
>> on how you may modify it and still use i
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL is not "completely unmodifiable", you just have limitations
on how you may modify it and still use it as a license.
The FSF has given blanket permission
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:25:43 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote:
> Actually, the base-files package is under the GPL itself, so it's not
> a random inclusion. It applies to several copyrightable pieces like
> /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ or /usr/share/doc/base-files/README.base
> -- and even if it wasn't
Javier SOLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>For additional safety, can the infrastructure accept GPG-signed submissions?
>>
>>
> This could be a problem, if it is a requirement. In many case
> localisers are not technical people, and this could be a strong
> barrier to usage.
I think that we don'
I can't answer most of these questions.
But you will probably be helped by the fact that databases, as mere
collections of facts, are usually *not copyrightable*, certainly not in the
US. So these documents are most likely in the public domain. I believe this
is the way to go: unless there ap
The CID Font Code Public License is non-free, per the discussion linked to by
bug 211765.
At the time, Branden couldn't find anything actually under the license.
> One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils'
> package, and the full license included in its debian/copyrigh
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
> I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public
> License", included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
> was recently removed because the lice
On 6/1/06, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, the base-files package is under the GPL itself, so it's not
a random inclusion. It applies to several copyrightable pieces like
/usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ or /usr/share/doc/base-files/README.base
-- and even if it wasn't the case,
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 05:55:14PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a
> >licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of
> >the GPL otherwise is not allowed bec
On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a
licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of
the GPL otherwise is not allowed because it doesn't satisfy the DFSG.]
The only exception is base-files, /usr
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> the original software. (Excepting, for legal reasons, the text of
> the work's license(s).)
This
12 matches
Mail list logo
