Re: Tremulous packages

2006-05-06 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >It's sad that many people go on refusing to listen to freeness concerns >and happily release works in non-free manners... :-( Why should anybody care about what some people in Debian thinks about CC licenses? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-05-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:12:40 +0200 Heretik wrote: > - About the datas : > - Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say > the > GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias > authors and making the license change requires contacting all of them > and they

Re: Re: Tremulous packages

2006-05-03 Thread Heretik
- About the datas : - Actually, they don't intend to change the license yet. They say the GPL is not for arts, whereas CC is. Also, there are many medias authors and making the license change requires contacting all of them and they don't see the point of doing this. Though, they told they will c

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:52 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many > >restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say. > >You should try

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:55:08 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will > >not > be enforcing any of the problematic > >> clauses, along with the promis

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-28 Thread Joe Smith
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say. You should try contacting the copyright holders (AT&T, Christopher W. Fraser, and

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-28 Thread Joe Smith
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not be enforcing any of the problematic clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC when possible should qualify them as f

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-27 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:29:37 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense > > them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will > > make them debian-free. > > > > - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author >

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-27 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:22:22 +0200 Heretik wrote: > Hi list, Hi! > > I ITP Tremulous for Debian > (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have > some license concerns. > > I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous, > tremulous-data and tremulous-serv

Re: Tremulous packages

2006-04-26 Thread Joe Smith
"Heretik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi list, I ITP Tremulous for Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some license concerns. I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous, tremulous-data and tremulous-ser