Re: Keeping track of DSFG-free and non-free licenses

2004-07-24 Thread Laurent Fousse
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:59:39PM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Laurent Fousse wrote: > >I stopped reading right after 1e. > > Do you mean 1.1.e.? Yes. There are several other smelly clauses with leave little doubt about the

Re: Keeping track of DSFG-free and non-free licenses

2004-07-24 Thread Laurent Fousse
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:13:08PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote: > My motivation for asking for this is that my Xprint upstream author prefers > ksh93 to bash, and would prefer it if we were to use it. Looking into > ksh93, AT&T has now released it as open-source, but the licence > (http://www.resea

Re: GPL compatibility question.

2004-01-31 Thread Laurent Fousse
Hi and thanks for your quick reply, Le Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:24:34PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote: > > I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue. > > Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#2

GPL compatibility question.

2004-01-31 Thread Laurent Fousse
Hi debian-legal, I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue. Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several files : - one is BSD licensed - some are under the X11 license as found in