liblinebreak license

2008-03-20 Thread Joey Hess
I may need to package liblinebreak, as it seems that new versions of fbreader will use it. Thought I'd run the licenses past legal, though I think I've convinced myself they are free. The main license is BSD-ish: 7 * Copyright (C) 2008 Wu Yongwei 8 * 9 * This software is provided

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

2008-03-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
On mer, 2008-03-19 at 20:34 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications > and permissions. This is, well, an interesting claim. >4. *Redistribution of Work and Derivative Works*. You may reproduce > and distribute copies of the

Re: Shouldn't flashplugin-nonfree be in non-free

2008-03-20 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Mittwoch, den 19.03.2008, 09:41 +0100 schrieb timothy demulder: > Could someone explain me why flashplugin-nonfree is residing in > contrib and not in non-free? http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-sections HTH and Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO

Re: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license

2008-03-20 Thread Giancarlo Niccolai
Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:59:33 +0100 Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > I assume you mean that you would like to have your license "analyzed" or "revised" by debian-legal. Yes, sorry, the word was eaten while editing :-/ > >> The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clar