On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:39:28AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> However, just to correct Branden, being GPL-imcompatible does not make
> the GFDL non-free.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I know it's not the case. A
consequence of writing mail in the small hours, I guess.
GPL-incompatib
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> > I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
> > presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
> > years ago, to obtain complete and unambig
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> > I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
> > presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
> > years ago, to obtain
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
> presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
> years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the
> article. If I succeed, I wil
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the
article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and
'perlreftut', the derived manpage, under
Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:05:18PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Then we cannot distribute it legally at all.
> The requirement is "as part of the Standard Version of Perl, or as
> part of its complete documentation, whether printed or otherwise".
I
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:05:18PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
>
> > > This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
> > > package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-optio
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
[snip]
> (I find your "reading" to have so little to do with DFSG#1 that I'm having
> difficulty figuring out where to start, so I'll leave that to others.)
Well, obviously
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> It's already separated from perl into perl-doc.
>
> Then we cannot distribute it legally at all.
I'm not totally certain about that, as one could argue that perl-doc
is merely a segmentation of the entire
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:13:00AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
>> This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
>> perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
>> non-option from the perspective of users.
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
> > package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-option from
> > the perspective of users.
> It's already separated from perl in
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
> package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-option from
> the perspective of users.
It's already separated from perl into perl-doc. Furthermore, in this
case, the informatio
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, the package containing it, which means creating a "perl-doc-non-free"
> package.
But wait--we can't even do that, due to the very licensing we're discussing.
Even worse.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > > So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
> >
> > I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
> > non-free...
>
> #pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
>
> Move perl to non-free?, things seem to be gett
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
> > non-free...
> >
> #pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
[...]
> #pragma end_sarcasm()
See what happen
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
> perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
> non-option from the perspective of users.
Objection. The sole purpose of this manpage is to duplicate things
c
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
> >
> > So it does. It will have to be relicensed or re
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
>
> So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
Scripsit Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
(This does not add much, I know, but I felt the cc: to debian-legal
ought to result in some kind of response from us d-l people).
--
Henning Ma
Package: perl-doc
Version: 5.8.0-18
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi,
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
Here is an extract from the bottom of the manpage:
"Distribution Conditions"
Copyright 1998 The Perl Journal.
When include
20 matches
Mail list logo
