Le vendredi 28 avril 2006 à 10:33 +1000, Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards.
We've never considered choice of law as non-free. Such clauses are
considered moot in most juridictions anyway.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/
"john skofot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this in violation of the gpl?
No, IMHO it's one of the typical uses of the freedoms the GPL explicitly
grants.
> Is he allowed to remove chapters and misleadingly change the title?
If he has changed the document to contain more up-to-date informati
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
I went over the package list more carefully, and it seems the only two
public domain RFCs that are included in Debian testing:
usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc951.txt.gznet/dhcp3-common
usr/share/doc/camstream-doc/tech/rfc959.txt.gz doc/camstream-doc
The following p
* Simon Josefsson:
> text/xml2rfc
>From the debian/copyright file:
| The software is released under the following license. Note that the
| output produced by xml2rfc may include more restrictive copyright
| statements, to conform with ISOC and IETF requirements. This is why
| some of the compi
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> text/xml2rfc
>
> From the debian/copyright file:
>
> | The software is released under the following license. Note that the
> | output produced by xml2rfc may include more restrictive copyright
> | statements, to conform with ISO
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * 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 t
On Friday 28 April 2006 13:34, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> The following packages appear to contain IETF RFCs/drafts, and I'll
> file bug reports for them:
As per good mass filing practices, can you create a linda/lintian test out of
your method you used to search for the rfc's ? This would have seve
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not
be enforcing any of the problematic
clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC
when possible should qualify them
as f
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many
restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say.
You should try contacting the copyright holders (AT&T, Christopher W.
Fraser, and
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this considered serious enough to warrant a new .orig
tarball? I do not expect a n
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:55:08 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >> A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will
> >not > be enforcing any of the problematic
> >> clauses, along with the promis
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:52 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >The license you quoted is definitely non-free, because of the many
> >restrictions it contains: it fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#3, I would say.
> >You should try
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
> 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 licens
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:57:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote:
>
> > 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
It seems I made some typo sending this mail, so forwarding it.
Kurt
--- Begin Message ---
The RFC's published here all were made by individuals, and were
not made by some IETF process.
rfc1459 comes from a document that was always part of the irc
source package.
For instance, in the software
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:22:43 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:30 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC
>> are (I believe) in the public domain.
> Public domain RFCs (if there are any) can be identified by looking
17 matches
Mail list logo
