Rogério Brito wrote:
> P.S.: Please, as I am not a native speaker of English, feel free to
> correct my grammar, style or anything that would improve the text.
Here you go. Feel free to ignore any or all of my suggestions.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Re: Software Licence for URW Garamo
Hi, pabs.
2010/4/14 Paul Wise :
> I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
> would like them to choose.
That's very good. But how should the request be phrased? Should it be
a formal letter? Since you are a native English speaker, can you
suggest any rewording? Other
I'd strongly suggest to indicate a preference about which license you
would like them to choose.
I would personally suggest standard FLOSS licenses like BSD,
MIT/Expat, ISC, GPL + font exception etc. If those aren't acceptable,
the SIL OFL is a DFSG-compatible compromise between font foundry needs
Some points:
Jokes are great, but licenses are not the place to make them. Come to
DebConf and make them over conversation and $BEVERAGE instead.
License proliferation is bad, license standardisation/consolidation is good!
The DUMB license is extremely far from clear. License clarity is
extremel
Dear people,
Below is a draft of a letter that I intend to send to (URW)++ to try
to get them to release the URW Garamond No. 8 fonts in a license that
is free according to the DFSG.
This move was suggested to me by Khaled Hosny, a member of the Arabic
TeX community.
I am open to comments and cr
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:42:22 +0800
"Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC)" wrote:
> They forked a new version from 0.9.2 , and the library in Debian is 0.9.3 .
> I think the problem that could be solved between versions.
>
> Because the authors in deadbeef want to release with GPL and LGPL Version 2,
> I'm s
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> In addition you could just keep the packaging in your SVN repo and
> expect people to build the package manually.
It was pointed out that, depending on how you do it, this could be
considered distribution. Alioth (svn.d.o) is not hosted in the
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Wolfram Quester wrote:
>> In addition, like Fedora, Debian probably wouldn't distribute it
>> because of the patent risk.
>
> Yes, but I still don't know which patent might be violated :-(
Probably one of these:
http://www.google.com/patents?q=ActiveSync
Looks
Hi Paul,
thanks for your reply!
> Since Debian servers (ftp-master & mirrors) are located in the USA,
> the license forbids it from being distributed by Debian:
>
> http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=ries
>
> In addition, like Fedora, Debian probably wouldn't distribute it
> because of the
Since Debian servers (ftp-master & mirrors) are located in the USA,
the license forbids it from being distributed by Debian:
http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=ries
In addition, like Fedora, Debian probably wouldn't distribute it
because of the patent risk.
berlios is probably technically in
Hi altogether,
On debian's goupware-meeting, [1]
I started to work on packaging z-push [2] for debian.
Z-push is a software to syncronise ActiveSync-capable phones
to your groupware server. It is licensed under GPLv2, however the LICENSE file
starts with
> NOTE: According to sec. 8 of the GNU Gene
11 matches
Mail list logo
