Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-13 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: > What do you think about debian packages like daemontools-installer > which could use such a program to create the man pages and put them > into the resulting debian packages? As I understand this this is > quite ok because the user starts "build-daemontool

Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-13 Thread Klaus Reimer
Hallo, On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:16:49PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > Assuming the use fell under fair use, it would be legal. It's > definetly not legal for debian to distribute the man pages, but I > don't think it would be a big deal for users to use such a program. What do you think about d

Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-13 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: >> To remove confusion, could you please specify which license these >> manuals or texts are under and link directly to them on DJB's >> website? > > There is no license. Hrm. Well, that usua

Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-13 Thread Klaus Reimer
Hallo, On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: > > D. J. Bernstein maintains a website with documentation texts but > > because all these texts are not licensed under a DFSG-free license it > > is not possible to convert these pages

Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-09 Thread Don Armstrong
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote: > D. J. Bernstein maintains a website with documentation texts but > because all these texts are not licensed under a DFSG-free license it > is not possible to convert these pages into man pages and put them in > the *-installer/*-src-Packages. To remove co

Re: Automatically creating non-free manual pages

2003-06-09 Thread David B Harris
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:10:39 +0200 Klaus Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this text is good enough. Also I'm > not a native english-speaker so maybe this is not really good english. > So I would be glad about improvements of the above text. The text looks good