Re: Problem with mush's license

@ 05/04/2004 20:30 : wrote Henning Makholm : Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified > sources. If nothing is said about it, then it is not allowed. I agree with Don Armstrong that the binary packages must be removed from t

pasqua

       ANNO  IV  13 APRILE  2004          N° 10   H

GPL and scripting languages (here: python2.3-psycopg)

Ciao, my understanding of the GPL is, that one can use GPLed scripting language modules, such as python2.3-psycopg, in a non-GPL, proprietory application, right? (As long as I give away the module itself and any changes I might have done under the GPL, of course.) Or do I have to use python2.3-p

Summary of the CC-by

Debian-legal has concluded that the CC-by (Creative Commons Attribution license) v1.0 is not a DFSG-free license. It is quite possible that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a Free license in the sense of the DFSG. However, since requiring attribution and credit is acceptable under the

Re: Problem with mush's license

Göran Weinholt wrote: > Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite > extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the > modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them? No. In fact, there's no permission to distribute *any* binaries; the