On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> [I readded the bug report to CC despite of the contradicting MFT,
> since it doesn't make sense to exclude it]
Yeah, I didn't include it because I didn't know what the clone's bug
number was going to be... it's included and set appropriately now.
>
[I readded the bug report to CC despite of the contradicting MFT,
since it doesn't make sense to exclude it]
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 08:13:14PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> debian-legal has recently reconsidered the OPL and has determined that
> it is a license that is not free.[1]
>
> This mean
clone 192748 -1
retitle -1 Open Publication License is not DFSG Free
severity -1 serious
thanks
debian-legal has recently reconsidered the OPL and has determined that
it is a license that is not free.[1]
This means that the debian webpages should have their license changed,
assuming this is poss
Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License) v1.0
is not a DFSG-free license.
- It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear. This is
a significant restriction on modification (DFSG ยง3)
4 matches
Mail list logo
