Thingamy Public License (TPL) Version 0.9.1

Hi people, I'd like to package (when it's a little more ready) zope_messages, a new zope email product with a zope-like license. The "Thingamy Public License" is based on the Zope Public License -- it's the ZPL 1.0 with some clauses removed and the names changed. Eric Enge, one of the authors, ha

Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?

Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute). This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that "must" to a "should," would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, what changes would you suggest? Thanks. (I'v

Re: Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy > the license. I think that still wouldn't satisfy the license, because it would not be rendered as a hyperlink (I assume). Also, our ftp sites allow ispell to be downloaded as

Re: Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that still wouldn't satisfy the license, because it would not > > be rendered as a hyperlink (I assume). > > It only has to be rendered as a hyperlink &qu

GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."

Hi again. I've just adopted 'oo-browser' which is licensed as follows: (source file BR-COPY) === * Copyright === The follow

Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."

I have subsequently found a copy of the GPL version 1 (in the vm source package), and will distribute it in the oo-browser package; so the only remaining question is: David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Q2.: There is *one* file in the source package that contains this &g

Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Is that the actual text of the file? > > If so, it seems to assert copyright, but doesn't grant any license. > We should not be distributing it. Yes, that's the actual text, but I think it was an upstream [non]editing error... Here's the releva

Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > I'm not sure we should worry about history. It's not too much trouble > to delete it from all future releases. Give the upstream author a > chance first; how long has it been since you asked him about the file? Less than 48 hours; how long do y

Re: New Version of Aspell English Dictionary Now Available (fwd)

I'm looking into that. (I'm the wenglish maintainer.) Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I hope everybody is happy now. > > Since it is the DEC wordlist caused a problem someone should really update > the wenglish package with something else since it is based on the DEC > wordlist.

very short copyright; is this OK?

I wrote to the author of gnus-bbbd.el to advise him that we had dropped it from distribution (some time ago) because it contained no copyright. He added the following two lines; is willing to add more if we desire. Is this sufficient? ;;; Copyright (c) 1995 by Brian Edmonds, feel free to use,

advice requested: wenglish may be non free

I've noticed a possible commercial-use restriction while adopting the wenglish package [a /usr/share/dict/words list of english words, in main/text]. I searched the -devel and -legal archives, but found no previous discussion about this. The upstream README.linux.words file describes the "non-co