>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sounds similar to the mandatory "Powered by Zope" button that was
> kicked around by the Zope guys but ultimately rejected as non-free.
Uh? The text says that if I offer ispell for download (or other form
of distribution) I must place a li
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Do you think emacs20 should be considered non-free?
> I'm undecided on that point.
It seems like it's a good one to consider then.
Let's assume at the outset that it's not going to be declared non-free for
woody, so that argu
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free?
>
There seems to have been a tendency throughout this discussion to determine
_policy_ based on the _practice_ of the FSF. Doesn't anyone else think that
this is the wrong way to proceed?
With no disrespect
> > It sounds similar to the mandatory "Powered by Zope" button that was
> > kicked around by the Zope guys but ultimately rejected as non-free.
>
> Uh?
I don't see that either. There no requirement for use, only for
distribution. But is it non-free anyway? I don't know.
> The text
On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
> Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
> (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
>
> This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
> "must" to a "should," would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, wha
Scripsit Zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Python Cryptography Toolkit v1.0.0
> From: Andrew Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 16:58:54 EST
> Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've just uploaded version 1.0.0 of the Py
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> So, presumably the reason we like modifiability for programs is so that:
[...]
> For docs, this means things like:
[...]
Excellent summary.
> Hrm. Actually, I can't see any invariant sections in the emacs21 manual,
> apart from the GPL and the GFDL themselves. Am I blin
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:31:55PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free?
[...]
> With no disrespect to the FSF, I think that Debian should decide its policy
> by considering the merits of competing arguments. It sh
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:54:18AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy
> the license.
Are we to permit licensors to dictate to us the precise contents of our
package descriptions? Should this be regarded as compatible with the
D
[People replying on -legal. Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the
list.]
This is the CPYRIGHT file from pine 4.43 my comments are in []. I've read
some of the earlier discussion about the pine license but I think some of
the concerns raised there are no longer relevant. (though there may b
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Z> On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
> > Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
> > (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
> >
> > This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
> > "mus
Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate
> debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by
> appending the letter "L" to the current version
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:54:03PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
This grants permission to modify,
> Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> mutual agreement: [...]
And this grants permission to redistribute...
> Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy
> the license.
I think that still wouldn't satisfy the license, because it would not
be rendered as a hyperlink (I assume).
Also, our ftp sites allow ispell to be downloaded as
David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy
> > the license.
>
> I think that still wouldn't satisfy the license, because it would not
> be rendered as a hyperlink (I assume).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that still wouldn't satisfy the license, because it would not
> > be rendered as a hyperlink (I assume).
>
> It only has to be rendered as a hyperlink "if the offering service
> supports hyperlinks
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:58:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:31:55PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> > > Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free?
> > With no disrespect to the FSF, I think that Debian should decide its policy
> > by considering the merits of competi
17 matches
Mail list logo
