On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:33:42 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[...]
> Question to the debian-legal crowd:
>
> Would a less-constraining version of GFDL be okay in this case?
No, unless you add so many permissions that really few GFDL features
would survive...
> There are
> packages in Debian for
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:35:25 +0200 David Bateman wrote:
[...]
> As mkdoc and mktexi are build tools that are independent of the package
> in the same way than gcc is I don't see the need to distribute them with
> the package and would prefer not to.
Debian Policy mandates that every package inclu
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:54:41 +0200 David Bateman wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> That is effectively correct though there is an intermediate step and a
> couple of octave-forge specific build tools. The complete set of steps
> together with the build tools are
>
> comms.txi
> fixed.txi
* David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-18 10:35]:
> That being the case a GPL compatible documentation license would be a
> better solution. Can you please suggest an appropriate modification of
> the documentation license to make it GPL compatible. I see no issues
> making this change as al
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:06 +0200 David Bateman wrote:
>
>
>> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> * David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:15]:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
>>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:27:56 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> * David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:15]:
>>
> [...]
>
>> I am not a license expert and I have no idea whether including GPL code in a
>> non-GPL released documentation is ok
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:06 +0200 David Bateman wrote:
> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[...]
> > * David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:15]:
> >
> >
> >> Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
> >> the package itself under a GPL license then the only i
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:27:56 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[...]
> * David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:15]:
[...]
> I am not a license expert and I have no idea whether including GPL code in a
> non-GPL released documentation is okay. I think it boils down to making
> sure the li
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
>> the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the
>> inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package
>> tar-ball.
>>
>
> Yes, distribution of the sour
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> David,
>
> Sorry for the belated reply.
>
> * David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:10]:
>
>
>> There remains the same issue with the comms toolbox where a similar
>> mechanism is used to build the documentation. For my code (a large part
>> of this toolb
David,
Sorry for the belated reply.
* David Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-10 11:10]:
> There remains the same issue with the comms toolbox where a similar
> mechanism is used to build the documentation. For my code (a large part
> of this toolbox) I give permission to release the docume
Just a further question, if the documentation is distributed as part of
the package itself under a GPL license then the only issue is the
inclusion of the fixed.texi and/or fixed.txi file within the package
tar-ball. The documentation is delivered with the source files where the
help strings ar
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Also, the TeXinfo source file contains scraps that are extracted from other
files (*.cc) distributed in the tarball. These files are released under
GPL-2+. Does that constitute a violation of the GPL?
I can't identify which scraps were copied into fixed.txi fro
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-09 10:20]:
> Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Please respect the M-F-T header when replying]
>
> Not visible on this client. Guessing. Please state wishes in body.
It was:
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.or
14 matches
Mail list logo
