Re: Bug#281672: marked as done (autoconf: non-free documentation)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >From what I can tell, the overall consensus was that sarge should >release with GFDLed and similar works in place, and that we should >remove these works post-sarge. You are confusing the result of a votation with a consensus. These are pretty different things. -- ciao,

Re: firmware : which license "less worse" available

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Of course, debian-legal declared this situation at best contrib for debian-legal is just a mailing list and cannot declare anything. Many people here like to declare things, but this does not mean that they will be accepted by the project. -- ciao, Marco

Re: zwiki copyright status

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > I think you meant: > > http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/ecommerc/digsig.html > > Unfortunately, the link to the directive on that page is 404 compliant. Thank you. It's a pity the EU shuffles its pages around so much. There is a copy of the Directive at http://europ

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 08:00:57PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > >| / Copyright Intel Corporation, 1995, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, > >02, 03, 04. | / > >| / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of > >| / installation in the BIOS or Operatin

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

>> 2- Debian distributes an "operating System", so we are allowed to >>distribute it. > > Maybe it's just that English is not my mother tongue, but I just can't > help my reading the license statement as meaning: > > ``These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of > install