Re: GUADEC report

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, "Abiword" is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that > modified versions of Abiword are either called "Abiword Personal", or > that they don't have "Abiword" in the name. This is a perfectly > reasonable application of a trademark to Fr

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > === CUT HERE === > > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote: [...] >> make *or* distribute [...] > copy *and* distribute [...] > copy *and* distribute [...] > copy *and* distribute [...] > make *or* distribute [...] > Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make

Re: Preferred license for documentation

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of >> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather >> than BSD in that respect.) > > Then use the GPL, ve

Re: GFDL

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop > any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain. Not "any political text" and not just "of GNU" nor just "in GNU packages", but any non-free content in any packages,

Re: begging the question

Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let's say we have a barrel of oats with some chocolate sprinkles mixed > in. Sifting through and removing all the chocolate sprinkles would be > a lot of work. But knowing that there are some chocolate sprinkles in > there (that no one ever worried

Re: License evaluation sought

Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following > license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old > adventure game: [snip] > At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having read > the Artist

Re: perl modules' default licence

Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I sometimes read in Debian Weekly News about discussions on debian-legal > about problems with packaging perl modules for Debian because of the > vagueness of the licensing terms they use. My understanding is that the > phrase that causes problems is: >

Re: mozilla export restrictions

Wolfgang Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:30:17 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I don't think so. AFAIK, these restrictions are not imposed by the >> license, and apply to U.S. citizens only. > > Doesn't this mean that we should put it to non-us? If we let it on the