"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I think we actually do agree - because I do think that the DFSG are
> *not* enough. What I've been quarreling a little with you is that the
> Four Freedoms, left unexplained, aren't enough either.
Nothing is "enough" in the terms you seem to want.
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The old BSD (obnoxiuous ad clause) is and was listed as free (but
> GPL-incompatible), while it's been considered DFSG-nonfree.
You are incorrect; it was (and is) regarded as DFSG free.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:39:12AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The show stopper is
>
> - commercial products that include this document are themselves
> compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
>
> for DSFG #9 (License Must Not Contaminate Other Software).
> Indeed. Debians manifesto doesn't even has a copyright notice not to
> speak
> of a license, and for the DFSG you will find people who say that even
> the
> copyright holders must not change it. Fact is that the FSF never was
> as
> zealous as some people want to make it appear.
I know. The r
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:59:01AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> A license that would only allow distribution of
> software non-commercially would be unusable for Debian, but using only
> the four freedoms, there's seemingly nothing wrong with such a
> license.
Ah, I see. Well, yes, that's
Marcus wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:22:18PM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Though the four freedoms of the FSF is a political statement. "These
> > are rights everyone should have when it comes to functional software"
> > - they're easily understandable and they're useful for advoca
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:15:45AM +0100, Sven wrote:
> > The real problem seems to be not the issue about aggregation, but
> > specifically the case that distribution on different kinds of media is
> > being treated differently, in a way which lets one be free, but not
> > the other.
>
> Mmm, ye
On Friday, February 1, 2002, at 07:41 AM, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Leave it as a relative URL (or is it just package name, don't
remember), and then let apt-get pick the mirror of its choice.
Pick the mirror by what means?
A configuration file in /etc/apt, of course. Could be a bunch of
mir
[lots of interesting stuff snipped that is discussed sufficiently as far as
I am concerned, thank you for it]
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:22:18PM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Though the four freedoms of the FSF is a political statement. "These
> are rights everyone should have when it comes
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:43:10PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 03:56 PM, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Extending it to absolute urls
> >would probably work, but has the serious problem that you can
> >only point to
> >one mirror, and not let the user cho
Marcus wrote:
> Right, RMS changed his opinion on this license shortly before the debate
> happened here.
So I noticed. That's how it goes, sometimes.
> Which is interesting, because I tend to disagree that it is
> free, but oh well ;)
In my (previously stated, for those keeping count) opinion
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:50:50PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm sure you're confusing debootstrap with base-config, which is not a
> part of the boot floppies per se. I'm glad to do any "internal solution"
> type changes in base-config that would be useful to the FSF. I
> frequently consider makin
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:15:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The question is that we will block this package from enterring
> > > debian because of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked
> >
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but in this case, the main business of the FSF is not book
> publishing, altough it will come, but, well, free software. It's not
> exactly the same.
If you are counting dollars earned, the FSF is a book and CDROM
publishing business.
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but it is not good. This let's us open to accusation of partiality.
We get to be partial. So what?
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 03:56 PM, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Extending it to absolute urls
would probably work, but has the serious problem that you can
only point to
one mirror, and not let the user choose, so I don't like that at all.
Leave it as a relative URL (or is it just packa
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Currently, the Debian installer (boot-floppies/dbootstrap) already asks
> whether to put non-free in the apt sources.list. It seems to me that
> creating a separate set of install disks for the GNU distro would be
> sufficient to eliminate this question and configure only
> Well, we should at least the say that we consider documentation as being
> software,
This is a central point. Some have argued that the DFSG doesn't apply
to documentation, others have argued that it's all we have to go on for
now. That's what I'll do here.
> > Let me try the following: s/pr
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:39:07AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause
> > > *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be
> > > permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is
> > > distrib
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian
> > because
> > of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we
> > would
> > not like bein
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:11:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe
> > debian-dfsg-modifications ?
>
> Right now, there are people who think we are not allowed to even
> modify the DFSG. All
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Get O'Rielly to send us, in writing, signed, a simple unambiguous
>statement that assures us that their conditions for distribution of
>this document conforms with the DFSG, and that any interpretation
>of their written license terms,
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing we could do is this:
> - Get O'Rielly to send us, in writing, signed, a simple unambiguous
>statement that assures us that their conditions for distribution of
>this document conforms with the DFSG, and that any interpretation
>
Given this:
> From: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:21:54 +0100
> Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML
>
> I get an answer from O'Reilly, they told me that in their opinion the
> reported notice (i.e. the text they want to appear in the debian package
> that I reported
Scripsit Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think the intent of Section 1, and the consensus of
> debian-legal, would be expressed by the addition of the phrase in
> brackets:
> The license a Debian component may not restrict any party
> from selling or giving away the software
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian because
> of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we would
> not like being removed. But again, it can be dealt with at another time.
If you know of any, we should
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe
> debian-dfsg-modifications ?
Right now, there are people who think we are not allowed to even
modify the DFSG. All that discussion is for debian-vote, I guess.
> Mmm, not sure, the DFSG is more t
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:15:39PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
> > Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
> > recently (Colin Watson
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
> Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
> recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be
> resolved.
Not quite,
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best
> > to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to
> > include, and one that we can ha
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> For example, just to remind everyone, RMS is not asking that Debian removes
> non-free and contrib. However, he requires that someone installing the
> GNU system will not have the option to add those to the apt config offered
> t
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> [...]
> > The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
> > acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and
> >
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier)
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> [...]
> > The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
> > acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU
> > system and what not.
> [...]
> > So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause
> > *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be
> > permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is
> > distributed on.
>
> Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumven
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
[...]
> The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
> acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and
> what not.
[...]
So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debia
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:15:34AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > At the Q&A following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
> > > mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's
> > > different (I believe RMS used the term "weaker" which may be more
> > > approp
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:15:34AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>
> > > At the Q&A following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
> > > mentioned a problem he had ju
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:23:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff.
> >
> > (it would need a vote though, isn't it ?
>
> And discussion somewhere else. :)
Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we
> > interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit
> > about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpr
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:21:32AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ...
>
> Um, you didn't get totally ignored. Your complaint was that you
> didn't get an instant unequivocal answer.
I was speaking a
Scripsit Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> > At the Q&A following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
> > mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's
> > different (I believe RMS used
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff.
>
> (it would need a vote though, isn't it ?
And discussion somewhere else. :)
> But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from
> outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ...
Um, you didn't get totally ignored. Your complaint was that you
didn't get an instant unequivocal answer.
> I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian
> tasks aside, and wel
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the
> > DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may
> > well be forgotten for anot
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:00:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we
> > could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the
> > previous messages on this thread.
>
> Loo
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the
> DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may
> well be forgotten for another similar problem in the future, or will it be
> filled somewhere accesible an
Hi,
mmmh, this should probably be on debian-project or something...
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> > exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long
> > long legal disquisition.
>
> Sorry, wrong list for that ;)
Why, if you tell him clearly that it is not DFSG free, then the package will
go into non-free, and
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we
> could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the
> previous messages on this thread.
Look, the procedure is to ask debian-legal. Sometimes things take
discussion and time.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a
> > comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be
> > happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a
> comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be
> happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this
> problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about i
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package
> > and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of
> > the peoples you will have to convince and who
I inadvertantly posted this to the newsgroup linux.debian.legal not knowing
the gateway between the debian-legal mailing list and linux.debian.legal is
unidirectional (mailing list -> newsgroup). My apologies for those of you
who read linux.debian.legal and see this twice.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In short, we would not regard as DFSG-free a license that said you
> couldn't distribute the work on a CD-ROM, quarter-inch magnetic tapes,
> on clay tablets, or engraved onto a mountainside.
Ok, I find that convincing as well. The DFSG does not all
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to know if the reported requirements imposed by O'Reilly
> are free enough to satisfy DFSG or not.
I'm actually unclear as to what the exact license is. The only text
that was produced was in your first email to debian-legal. That, I
be
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems.
Aren't they every free documentation user's problem? It seems unwise to me
to encourage users to modify and/or republish or redistribute something
covered by an unclear license by accepting it into Debian.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bzzt! NO!
>
> Do not "just upload" packages with license questions. Sort the
> questions out *first* and don't try and hide them or force the FTP
> queue masters to do your job.
>
> In my opinion, the license in question is
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package
> and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of
> the peoples you will have to convince and who has the final saying.
Bzzt! NO!
Do not "just upload" packages with license q
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:25:07PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:35:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence
> > dedication to my dog? To be more realistic, how about the statement
> > "Printed 2002 by
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:35:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence
> dedication to my dog? To be more realistic, how about the statement
> "Printed 2002 by FooBar Inc". It seems that allowing aggregate
> for-profit distribution is
On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 09:43, Sven wrote:
> Then, there is the ideological debate we could have, about if this is a good
> thing or not, and if the DFSG was meant to be applied to documentation also,
> and not to just programs, and if we go down this path, we should also specify
> using only free ha
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 02:33:18AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Marcus wrote:
> > No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> > exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> > the GFDL might become such a case).
>
> The vim
Marcus wrote:
> No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> the GFDL might become such a case).
The vim license was listed as a free license on gnu.org while
debian-legal debated it. (A
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 04:21:16PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I have not yet checked if we have perl modules that are only under
> Artistic, and not dual licensed under GPL, but we probably do.
Yes, we do. I maintain one of them (libgetargs-long-perl). :(
--
Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:44:44AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I'm not really sure whether the DFSG should also be read as
> requiring the free right to make and sell hardcopies. One could argue
> either way from the text of the DFSG, I think.
Should it be read to permit the free righ
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ in lists reply, because I really need a wide range of, possibly
> authoritative, opinions on this damned book! ]
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:48:45AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> > So, if I understand O'Reilly's new view correctly, I coul
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:30:07PM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
>
> Zack wrote:
> > Because debian is more "liberal" than FSF.
>
> The DFSG are possibly (though I'm not sure) even harsher than the FSF
No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
exclude, and
Zack wrote:
> Because debian is more "liberal" than FSF.
The DFSG are possibly (though I'm not sure) even harsher than the FSF
guidelines (the "four freedoms"). They need to be, to avoid legal
trouble (e.g. really make sure you have explicit freedom to
redistribute commercially.)
Sunnanvind
[ in lists reply, because I really need a wide range of, possibly
authoritative, opinions on this damned book! ]
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:48:45AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> So, if I understand O'Reilly's new view correctly, I could build a business
> around selling printed versions of
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:38:30AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
> > otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
> > gained specifically
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:16:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, i think they grant the right to distribute it in electornic
> > form, ity is just for the printed version that they don't want to
> > give permission, thing that i consider normal f
Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I just received a mail from O'Reilly and they change their minds and
> told me that they are no longer concerned about the medium but they like
> a condition that explicitely allow commercialization "as a component of
> an aggregate distribution
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:52:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Would they protest if someone bound hardcopies of the book together
> with (say) the GCC manual in a single volume, and sold such volumes
> for profit?
Regarding this point,
I just received a mail from O'Reilly and they change th
Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Okay, so it says "aggregate", and selling _a_ book does not do in an
> > aggregate form. So I guess we need the right to modify and distribute
> > for documentation to be free.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Okay, so it says "aggregate", and selling _a_ book does not do in an
> aggregate form. So I guess we need the right to modify and distribute
> for documentation to be free.
Following this idea, the requirement imposed by O'Reill
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > since selling is only needed to be permitted in an aggregate form.
>
> That's an interesting point. Does that mean that the following licence
> is DFSG-free?
>
> This software is Copyright (C) 1991-2000 by Wayne Davison.
> Por
[-ocaml-maint cc trimmed]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
>1. Free Redistribution
>
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a com
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, i think they grant the right to distribute it in electornic
> form, ity is just for the printed version that they don't want to
> give permission, thing that i consider normal for a book publisher.
Debian's standards are not governed by "what is normal for
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:28:54PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > violate the DFSG.
>
> Which is false
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:50:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > > violate the DFSG.
> >
> > As someone who has packaged documentation before, I'm
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:28:54PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > violate the DFSG.
>
> Which is false. The right to commercial redistribution for profit,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:50:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > violate the DFSG.
>
> As someone who has packaged documentation before, I'm surprised t
Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> violate the DFSG.
Which is false. The right to commercial redistribution for profit, in
electronic form at the
> They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> violate the DFSG.
As someone who has packaged documentation before, I'm surprised that
Debian would agree with this. It's clearly non-free for software, and I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:45:40PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I hoped I made it clear that I'm unsure about the necessity of that.
> I'm soliciting comments from other debian-legal people.
I get an answer from O'Reilly, they told me that in their opinion the
reported notice (i.e. the text the
Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:44:44AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > However, I'm not really sure whether the DFSG should also be read as
> > requiring the free right to make and sell hardcopies. One could argue
> > either way from the text of the D
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:44:44AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I'm not really sure whether the DFSG should also be read as
> requiring the free right to make and sell hardcopies. One could argue
> either way from the text of the DFSG, I think.
>
> If the license you quoted were to app
Scripsit Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This document is the official (1.0) electronic version of the book
> "D=E9veloppement d'applications avec Objective Caml", written by Emmanuel
> Chailloux, Pascal Manoury, and Bruno Pagano, and published by =C9ditions
> O'Reilly under ISBN 2-84177-
88 matches
Mail list logo
