On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:47:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's quite correct. We're also discussing moving the Gdb manual from
> main, and seem to have agreed that that's entirely appropriate.
N.B., an older version of the GDB Manual, corresponding to version
4.18,, is entirely Free.
At
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:26:49AM -0600, Adrián De León wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (What if RMS expands the GNU Manifesto to double its current size?)
>
> FWIW The GNU Manifesto starts like this:
>
> The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:36:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their
> position falls more-or-less into one of the following?
>
> 1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free documents in
> Debian.
>
> 2) Documents wit
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> we are only at the very start of addressing the issue how to interpret the
> DFSG for documentation
>
Oh, good. :-)
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UKhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lo
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I prefer a proportional limit for two reasons. First, a fixed limit
> invites the abuse of splitting a big invariant thing into a bunch of
> packages. Second, a proportional limit guarantees that we get some
> real fully-free
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:36:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their
> position falls more-or-less into one of the following?
Thank you for this excellent summary :)
[positions elided, they've been quoted often enough]
> BTW, I have
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:00:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The following is a concrete proposal, but it has two very important
> BLANKS in it, with some suggested things that could fill in the
> BLANKS. My purpose in giving this is that I think we can all agree
> about everything here
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> One example of a requirement that doesn't impinge freeness, but isn't
> in option one, is something that says "you must preserve the notice
> that the unmodified version of this software can be found at web site
> foo." Such a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:43:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sections like the "Distribution" section are very common in software;
> I was assuming that it counted as text incidental to the license. The
> Distribution section is rather more verbose, but it's very common to
> have licens
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 03:52:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > One example of a requirement that doesn't impinge freeness, but isn't
> > in option one, is something that says "you must preserve the notice
> > that the un
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I prefer a proportional limit for two reasons. First, a fixed limit
> > invites the abuse of splitting a big invariant thing into a bunch of
> > packages. Second, a proportion
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, the GPL usually is applied in a way to allow upgrading the license
> to any later version, so this problem was neatly solved for the GPL. I
> don't know if the new address spawned a new version, but the FSF would have
> clarified, I am sure.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This problem affects the GPL itself as well, and the last time the FSF
> moved it was handled via silent replacement of the license text. I even
> wrote the Lintian check for that :-) But the GPL has explicit provisions
> that allow such upgrading,
Please CC: me, i'm not subscribed to debian-legal.
Note: i posted this in October already.
Attached below is the planned "debian/copyright", including the
licence i got from the author.
Can this package go into non-free?
The biggest Problem is the sentence "The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
not s
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
> The biggest Problem is the sentence "The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
> not sold." i think.
This is a legal fiction -- though it happens to be one that even Free
Software licensors attempt to use to their advantage -- so I don't th
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 06:00:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > The biggest Problem is the sentence "The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,
> > not sold." i think.
>
> This is a legal fiction -- though it happens to be one that eve
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:28:53PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> copyright:
> ---
> Larabie Fonts End-user license agreement software product from Larabie Fonts
> ---
>
> [...]
>
If you keep the fonts as th
Hi!
Could you take a look at wpoison? (RFP #122929)
I guess it's DFSG compliant but just to make sure...
I've also asked the author for permission to use PNG versions
of his official GIF, do you think the modified license is okay too?
These are the changes for the new license:
27,30c27,34
< #
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:50:54AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 27,30c27,34
> < # software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Also, the
> < # official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML hyperlink
> < # so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
