Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free
art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations
for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the
latter case, but how about the former?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/
On 4/27/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free
> art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations
> for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the
> latter case, but how
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To summarize, I think that, if those documents are actually modified in
> MS Word Doc format by their actual maintainers, then their source code
> is really in MS Word Doc format.
I agree.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, P
When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing
issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very
careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the
upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files
that the packager
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
> Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be
> distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to
> be pulled from the repository?
Yes, unless you get a license exemption from th
On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing
> issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very
> careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the
> upstream distribution,
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> > When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing
> > issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very
> > careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the f
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same
>> > problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large,
>> > and better than I would expect
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
>> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
>>
>> Then I looked at what o
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly
>> relevant, to the effect of "nonfree material might be included in a
>> package in `main' if it is well-separated, and not required for the
* Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810
>
> That package seem to be in non-free now... I'm arguing the same for
> RFCs in other packages too.
The bug is against libnss-ldap, which is cert
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free
> art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations
> for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the
> latter case, but how about the f
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
> > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be
> > distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to
> > be pul
First, apologies if these questions doesn't belong on this list.
I'm wondering if you can answer the question belonging to this story:
I write a big document, license it under GPL.
The document contains several chapters about installing and using
version 1.3 of some program, let's call it "Clea
First and foremost, none of this is legal advice; if you want legal
advice contact and retain your own attorney.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, john skofot wrote:
> The translator makes no mentioning of the fact that the document
> isn't merely translated, but also heavily edited, and nothing like
> the ori
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:44:01 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for
> > free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your
> > recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artis
On 27 Apr 2006 09:57:11 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker writes:
[...]
> > But maybe it would be good to add this more specifically into the
> > debian/copyright file:
> >
> > Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author
> > Upstream license text
> > +
> > +Debian packaging
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi all!
Hi!
>
> I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I
> believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860.
Good, I tagged your bug nonfree-doc rfc as user
debian-release@lists.debian.or
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:22:22 +0200 Heretik wrote:
> Hi list,
Hi!
>
> I ITP Tremulous for Debian
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have
> some license concerns.
>
> I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous,
> tremulous-data and tremulous-serv
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:29:37 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
> > - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense
> > them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will
> > make them debian-free.
> >
> > - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author
>
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Guido Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the
> > files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK
> > distributing them as is...
>
> Sort of
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
>>> Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be
>>> distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc packag
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> is DFSG-free.
Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
Free Art License
[ Copyleft Attitude ]
version 1.2
Preamble :
With this Free Ar
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
> > > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be
> > > distributed. Does the mea
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:15:28 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
And here's my co
Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards.
FSF lists it as a free documentation license soon after the GFDL.
Other than section 8, it seems a simple, GPL-incompatible (due to
section 3), copyleft license.
andrew
On 4/28/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ?
> >
> > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be.
>
> I don't agree.
> The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference).
> I do *no
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:46:18PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
> > > > Microsoft
突然のメール失礼いたします。
最高のシステムです！あなたのパソコンにインストールするだけで
自動販売機のように勝手に稼いでくれるソフトです。
あなたの自宅のパソコンに
「２４時間年中無休収入稼動ソフト - Inter4277（インター4277）」
をインストールして永続的な高収入を稼いでみませんか？
メール特別価格：3850円（定価：9850）
※情報マニュアル・プログラム参加権利付
上記特別価格はこのメールを受け取った際に適用されます。
ウェブ上では定価：9850円で設けておりますので
29 matches
Mail list logo
