Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
> No, it is not.
> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
> invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
It originated in
htt
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
> documentation from main here some comments from the release team on
1. Wishlist: non-DFSG-free seems odd and invites the "DFSG aren't DFDG"
response. Maybe "documentation which d
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
>> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
> The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
> saying that all along.
You were also saying that C is "pr
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:29:33PM +0200, giskard wrote:
>
> i need the support of debian-legal@ because i wanted to know if:
>
> - libavcodec2
> - libxvidcore4
> - libmjpegtools
> - libfaad2
FWIW, libavcodec has multiple copies in Debian (xine, vlc, avifile, ..),
libfaad is part of xine.
Dieg
Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
> The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that
> dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the
> binary is distributed.
I have yet to see any arguments from the FSF apart from baseless
and totally lunatic claims regarding der
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG. I hope the readers of this mailing list have more information
about this kind of a problem and how to address it with the authors of
the software and also with debian.
Current version can be found at
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:32:01AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
> > documentation from main he
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 5. Wishlist: use gfdl-1.2, cc-2.5, ... as applicable. We may yet get
> > improvements.
>
> Hmm, I don't know if we win anything by doing this. Either the license
> if free, then we can close the bug, or it is non-free, in this case w
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
>
> It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> DFSG.
Agree.
> Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to
> make the ki
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
> >
> > It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> > DFSG.
> Agree.
> I'm filing a
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you
> have to
> accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
> you can depart with any of their assertions.
And where can I find more deta
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how
> > to qualify an
> > act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the
> > parties intent
> > of the act's intended effect
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander> On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander> [...]
Alexander> > Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander> > accept them all (including the dynamic l
On 9/14/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]
> Alexander> > Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
> and then you have to
> Alexander> > accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you
> admit
> Alexander>
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:47:26 +0200 Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Something like a BSD-style license should be fine but the lack of
> "copyleft" might be disliked by the author.
My top recommendations:
Expat (a.k.a. MIT) http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
2-clause BSDhttp://www.gnu.org
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works."
> That may be true in the GNU Republic.
> Exclusive distribution right is about copies (material objects),
> not wo
On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> > distribute the Program or its derivative works."
>
> > That may be true in the GNU Republic.
>
> > Exclu
I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
Neither is the entire libparse subdir, or anything else by Frank Kardel.
I'm not actually sure it will build without these bits.
So I guess NTP should be removed from Debian. It's not ve
18 matches
Mail list logo
