closing this bug. If anyone objects to this feel free to reopen it :)
Cheers,
--
Stephen Stafford | Development and support consultant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.clothcat.org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| Never put off until tomorrow what you can
<[EMA
spare couple of
hours.
debian-legal people: I read -legal, no need to CC me but please keep the bug log
in the CC list
hwb people: similarly, I would greatly appreciate if you kept the bug log
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) in the CC list.
Cheers,
Stephen
--
Stephen Stafford | Development a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
> allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a
> point.
>
Um
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>
> Let's play fair now:
>
> >From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
>
> software
>n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
>and associated documentation pertaining to the operation
>of a compu
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1
Hi,
I am in the process of discussions with upstream about the licensing for a
new package.
The package build system is autoconf based.
Upstream really likes the Artistic license and would prefer to release with
that.
Is there any incompatibility with using the Artistic license when using an
au
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 02:22:34PM +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z pi?, 12-07-2002, godz. 11:50, Markus Klink pisze:
> > but what is so problematic about the license?
>
> I am not a lawyer, only a developer. I am not authoritative about
> what's really wrong. However I'll express my
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:53:08PM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
>
> c. to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and
> against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts
> and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in
> connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:52 pm, you wrote:
> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> writes:
>
> Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:38 am, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
>
> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> w
. It means that if as a
result of you distributing, someone else sues Sun then you are liable.
It says nothing about whether or not you can sue Debian. It explicitly
says that it is Sun which you must indemnify against damages.
As I indicated before. If you wish to assert that I am wrong an
knowledge of the issues
would like to tell me I am wrong and why then I am happy to withdraw my
objection (and probably reITP Squeak :)
Cheers,
--
Stephen Stafford
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get gpg public key
discussion with Apple's legal Dept about
this, and they confirmed my suspicion that my reading of the clause was
in fact correct. This led to me having to withdraw the ITP.
IMO (and I stress IANAL) the point you raise probably prevents us from
distributing it, and part (vi) which I pasted
that if I am wrong in this matter someone of the people there
who understand more about licensing issues than I do will let me know
that I am wrong.
Thank you for your interest and time,
Regards
- --
Stephen Stafford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get GPG public key
-BEGIN PG
mple...it is a description of the system. The system
(in its base form at least) comprises the Linux kernel and the GNU *nix
tools.
It is not IMO advertisment or recognition. It is a statement of what
the system contains at its base level (apache is higher than that)
--
Stephen Stafford
GPG
paid for
> their efforts. It's time that Debian recognizes that they aren't the
> only volunteers in the chain, and credit for authorship is not just a
> perk: it's the law in this case.
Nobody is denying this. /usr/share/doc/foo should state where the
package is from
t, it
goes in non-free due to fonts if nothing else, and I guess there is
nothing preventing it from being packaged (at least from this license).
I guess I now start talking to upstream and seeing if they
object/embrace the idea of it being packaged for Debian.
--
Stephen Stafford
GPG public key on request
packaged, and if it can,
should it go into main or non-free?
I have attatched the license.
- - --
Stephen Stafford
GPG public key on request
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
