Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-12-01 Thread Florian Weimer
* John Halton: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Gunnar Wolf: >> >> > 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license >> >regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any >> >purpose and without charge'. How would you inter

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-12-01 Thread John Halton
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 01:00:08AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Wait: the content and output of these programs is here licensed > under the terms of CC-by-nc-sa-v2.0 (which is utterly non-free). > What does this mean? Does "the content" mean the programs > themselves? Or something else (in that c

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:57:21 -0600 Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hi, debian-legal Hi! > > I'm basically done packaging the Ruby PDF::Writer [1] (as > libpdf-writer-ruby; ITP #442087). While the module itself is under an > MIT license, it includes quite a bit of different licenses in its > material. Plea

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread Gunnar Wolf
John Halton dijo [Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:53:29PM +]: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Gunnar Wolf: > > > > > 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license > > >regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any > > >p

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:11:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Gunnar Wolf: > > > 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license > >regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any > >purpose and without charge'. How would you interpret this? > > Compare

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread Florian Weimer
* Gunnar Wolf: > 2- This is the main reason I contact -legal: The short license >regarding the Adobe PostScript AFM files does mention 'for any >purpose and without charge'. How would you interpret this? Compare the Adobe AFM license and the MIT license. 8-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread John Halton
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:57:21AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > - Adobe PostScript AFM Files: may be used, copied, and distributed for > any purpose and without charge, with or without modification, > provided that all copyright notices are retained; that the AFM files > are not distributed wi

Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

2007-11-30 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Hi, debian-legal I'm basically done packaging the Ruby PDF::Writer [1] (as libpdf-writer-ruby; ITP #442087). While the module itself is under an MIT license, it includes quite a bit of different licenses in its material. Please refer to the debian/copyright file of my work-in-progress packaging [2