Hi,
in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00226.html
I asked if Debian binary packages have to include TeXinfo source files to
comply with GFDL section 3 (which is IMHO very different from GPL clause 3.c).
As this draft does not significantly change section 3, I am st
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:48:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[...]
> > Also, even if you consider documentation as software, there is
> > another obscure interpretational leap from there to considering
> > printed documentation as software.
> >
> > I know many in the free softare community
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
[...]
> The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
> acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and
> what not.
[...]
So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debia
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:27:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> RMS reports that a new upstream GDB release has been made (5.1.0.1)
> which fixes the copyright problem on the GDB manuals. I've filed an
> RC bug against the gdb package urging an upgrade.
Thanks Thomas, there is indeed n
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:07:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
>
> > a) Copyright notices
> >
> > Most Debian packages with GFDL documentation do not mention in
> > /usr/share/doc//copyright that their manual is
Hi,
I am subscribed to this list and thus know there have been recently long
flame wars concerning the GFDL; anyway I would like to have enlightenments
about some practical details.
a) Copyright notices
Most Debian packages with GFDL documentation do not mention in
/usr/share/doc//copyright that
Hi all,
I can not determine whether this license is DFSG compliant or not,
and i do not agree with opinions expressed on comp.text.tex about my
questions.
So could someone confirm this is DFSG compliant, as claimed by the LaTeX
Team ?
I put `->' marks in front of the 3 lines causing trouble.
Tha
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:50:44PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > I understand ; afaik there is no tetex-src package.
>
> You _could_ check it yourself:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:09:26]:~/cvs/webwml/english/Bugs$ grep-avail
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> My current take:
>
> legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in
> the distribution (in debian terms: not necessarily in the same
> package but on the same media, with an exception for floppies).
I understand ; afaik there is no tetex
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
> > teTex) does not violate the LPPL.
>
> I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I h
==
From: Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Distribution of packages (was Re: french package status)
Hi folks,
forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
teTex) does not violate the LPPL.
One of the problem is
-> Redistribution of unch
11 matches
Mail list logo
