Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-08 Thread Junichi Uekawa
In Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:47:32 -0500 Brian cum veritate scripsit : I am cc'ing Richard Furse, because he would probably be interested in this thread. To summarize, the possible licenses are : a) LGPL b) BSD style license without the advertizing clause c) XFree86 license d) something new which is G

Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-08 Thread Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt
I originally posted this on debian-devel. However, I should have chosen -legal, duh me. Please see -devel for the discussion so far. Thanks. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy? Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:14:29 +0100 From: Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt

Re: Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-08 Thread David Starner
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: > I have attached LICENSE to this post - hope nobody minds, it's only 3.6kb. I > really need some input on this - would it be against the DFSG? I wouldn't > think so, only the long description should contain the license, a

Re: Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-08 Thread Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt
On Thursday 08 March 2001 23:16, David Starner wrote: > > non-free? Or is it totally against the DFSG? > > What do you mean "totally against the DFSG"? If it's in non-free, it's > against the DFSG. Yep, but I was thinking more in the lines of a shrink-wrap license, as somebody suggested. Or rathe

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-08 Thread John Galt
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote: >In Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:47:32 -0500 Brian cum veritate scripsit : > >I am cc'ing Richard Furse, because he would probably be interested in this >thread. > >To summarize, the possible licenses are : > >a) LGPL >b) BSD style license without the advertizing c

Re: Fwd: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-08 Thread Brian Russo
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:22:31PM +0100, Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt wrote: > On Thursday 08 March 2001 23:16, David Starner wrote: > > > non-free? Or is it totally against the DFSG? > > > > What do you mean "totally against the DFSG"? If it's in non-free, it's > > against the DFSG. If it's in no

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-08 Thread Craig Sanders
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Sampo Niskanen wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > AFAIR, the new legislation said that companies could apply at > > the government for a permission to release specific versions of > > strong-crypto software to a world-wide public. I