Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
> want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
> software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
> files for pcb, .sch files for gschem, and
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
> > want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
> > software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
> > files for pcb, .sch files for
The Free Software Foundation has published a new revision of the GNU
Free Documentation License, version 1.2.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
In my assessment, it does not substantially address the major concerns
that the Debian Project has raised.
The GNU FDL, version 1.2, is not necessari
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
> > > want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
> > > software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further analysis of the GNU FDL will likely center on section 4
> ("MODIFICATIONS"), and whether and how each of the many requirements
> therein mesh with DFSG 3 ("Derived Works"). Specifically, 4I seems
> similar in spirit to a requirement under the G
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 07:59:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Heh. There's another:
> >
> > miscfiles: /usr/share/misc/unicode.gz
> >
> > The current version is Unicode 3.1.1.
>
> According to http://www.unicode.org
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further analysis of the GNU FDL will likely center on section 4
> > ("MODIFICATIONS"), and whether and how each of the many requirements
> > therein mesh with DFSG 3 ("Derived Works").
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > I see no problem with this license as far as it goes, but it doesn't go
> > far enough.
> >
> > There is no permission granted to make modifications (and distribute
> > modified versions). (DFSG 3)
>
> So, according to Branden, inter
>> Does this mean every unicode text editor belongs in contrib (depends on
>> something non-free)?
>
>Many (perhaps all) RFCs are non-free as well; does that mean that
>compliant implementations must go into contrib or non-free?
The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm also curious about the meaning of this:
>
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially
> or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and
> the license notice saying this License a
[Jim trimmed from CC; I'm not sure why his address was in your M-F-T.]
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:43:33AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, are documents like the DFSG distrubuted with
> Debian?
Well, certainly some documents "like" the DFSG might be distributed as
part of the Debi
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 05:00:55PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
> distinct set of properties. UnicodeData.txt is basically a listing of
> those properties. If it is a copyrightable work,
That's a big if, and the answer may
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 01:59 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
> We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
> want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
> software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
> files for pcb, .sch files
13 matches
Mail list logo
