[Please cc-me, I'm not subscribed to the list]
Hi.
I have put ogle and a52 packages in incoming, and sice heard about
legal problems with ac-3 and a/52 code. Is this something to be
concerned with? Should the packages maybe be removed?
I alsa have a script that downloads and installs libdvdc
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:47:33AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> If I take apache, add an extra line to it, compile it and call it
> apache, and some legal entity calls it derivation, I'll be shitting
> bricks.
You'd better get some load-bearing underwear. :)
> I'm going to leave this alone though
Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences?
http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
while the seco
[cc list trimmed]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:03:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
>
> Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
> if they don't contain unmo
Scripsit Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
> I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
> while the second is not
AF
Folks:
In this thread:
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/thread.php3?subject=New+licence+for+cryto%2B%2B+code-base&list=208
It was concluded that Crypto++ contained a non-free file.
The current version of Crypto++, version 4.2, uses a different implementation
of
that algorithm. The new header
Scripsit Zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- begin included header
> // md2.cpp - modified by Wei Dai from Andrew M. Kuchling's md2.c
> // The original code and all modifications are in the public domain.
"Public domain" is fine for our purposes. However, the question is
whether that statement is
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
>Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences?
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeated
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
>
> I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
> while the second is not (i
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
> no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
> and consistently reminded by certain nameless individuals (how's that for
> irony :)
And yet, you kee
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
>> no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
>> and con
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:56:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > For instance:
> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "> * It's unjustified. Why 3
12 matches
Mail list logo
