* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo:
> May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is
> forbidden?
Probably in none. But publishing your results is not automatically
allowed, and sometimes, there are safeguards against producing a clone
(which serves as a replacement of the origi
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
> be difficult if they weren't.
Provided that we have complete source code and all the DFSG
requirements are fulfilled, they are acceptable. This has to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is n
* Josh Triplett:
> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from
> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a
> blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work saying "this has bee
* Josh Triplett:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Josh Triplett:
>>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I
>>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
>>>print the nroff source or supply it o
* Michael Poole:
> Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
> under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
--
Current mail filters:
* Jacobo Tarrio:
> O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
>
>> They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
>
> ... which are not "Copyright" or "Intellectual Property" laws [...]
Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does
* Matthew Palmer:
>> Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover
>> databases.
>
> Mechanical compilations, as well as those requiring creative effort?
Mechanical compilations as well. Of course, most of our codified
moral rights don't apply to them. 8-)
* Lucas Nussbaum:
> IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
> GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty, though, I shouldn't try to interpret contracts. 8->
* Brian M. Carlson:
> Actually, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses from
> Creative Commons are not DFSG-free. See the summary on debian-legal
> [0].
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution lic
* Branden Robinson:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licen
* Josh Triplett:
>>>The Dictator Test:
>>>
>>> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
>>> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
>>> applicable laws.
>>
>> What about warranty disclaimers? Or quite reasonable clauses dealing
>> with p
* Nathanael Nerode:
> You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't
> say "You agree not to sue..." or "You agree that there is no
> warranty..."
Wrong, there are certainly some cases:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF A
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
> author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
But isn't the Dictator Test trying to prevent that?
License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is,
they are
* Branden Robinson:
>> What about warranty disclaimers?
>
> What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding
> copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards?
It depends on who receives a license. For end users, the warranty
disclaimers are completely without ef
* Branden Robinson:
> In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another w
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> &g
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
>
> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
>> Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
>
> ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed becau
* Brian T. Sniffen:
> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
> of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>>
>>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>> ve
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>
> Consider the author's nam
* MJ Ray:
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
> otherwise.
T
* Andreas Barth:
> Also, the distinction between free and non-free is broken by this. If
> even acceptable restrictions are considered non-free, than DFSG-free
> is no longer an helpful guide for our users and also not for ourself.
Yes, this is a very valid point. If more and more packages are p
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
> DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
> pos
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] In fact, the DFSG do not
>> deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
>
> Are you sure? Really sure?
Yes, I checked it again. 8-)
> Can
* Michael Poole:
> DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
> terminate the license unilaterally.
Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
but I can't find one.
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
>> Software Foundation.
>
> That part seems inevitable in the current situation.
No, it's not, we
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, we could create a separate archive for
>> documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
>> and non-free.
>
> Please explain how you would
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * MJ Ray:
>>> Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
>>> -project.
>> I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves c
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>>> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
>>> permission to distribute.
>>
>> And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the
>> grants of permission to modify?
>
> Fortunately, this part is the core, and I was correct. Th
* Josh Triplett:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>>>Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
>>>players removed from Debian main?
>>
>> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
>> render MP3 players useful wi
* Branden Robinson:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
>>
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
> package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
> non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the conditions
| that you (i) do n
* Branden Robinson:
> Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
software without reason. I doubt that the test du jour can
* Branden Robinson:
> Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
> cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I'm not sure what you refer to as notification, but if it's writing an
> email to them, that shouldn't be a problem since contacting the author
> is part of the packaging process in any case.
Each mirror admin would have to contact them individually because most
mirrors are no
* Marco d'Itri:
> Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
> with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are
> distributed with the program.
> Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
If the plug-in is written from scratch (so it doesn'
* Branden Robinson:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a deriva
* Nathanael Nerode:
>> Oh, come on. We still can declare a document non-free if an author
>> tries to exercise his rights in an unacceptable way.
>
> This is not a viable interpretation. A freely licensed work must
> give a reasonable guarantee that the work will *remain* freely
> licensed. A w
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
> into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
> noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
> compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as w
* Andrew Suffield:
>> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
>> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
>> issue.
>
> I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
> programs?
The license itself mentions "program" severa
* Evan Prodromou:
> The classic example here is an autobiographical work. The author could
> ask that all references to herself be removed from a derivative work
> critical of her.
Such claims are usually not based on copyright. As I tried to
explain, the CC clause which is considered non-free w
* Branden Robinson:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more
>> its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
>
> As the proposer of the Dictator Test
* Josh Triplett:
> How about something vaguely like:
>
> """
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-rea
* Andrew Suffield:
> All of which is belied by the fact that the GPL contains a very
> careful definition of "Program" which has obviously been crafted to
> apply to any literary work.
The definition of "Program" in the GPL is about as precise as the
definition of "Point" in Euclidean Geometry.
* Daniel Stone:
> As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
> licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include.
The license appears to be DFSG-free, but incompatible with the GPL.
* Daniel Stenberg:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>
>> If this a hge can of worms or am I just plain wrong?
>
> Ok, don't hit me.
>
> I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic
> "openssl is PART of the OS" etc so no need to say anything else.
I thought
* Walter Landry:
> I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
>
> that there is a fee involved
Maybe you got no serious rebuttals because it's a bit hard to take
your analysis seriously. 8-)
* Andrew Suffield:
> Here's the snarly bit:
>
> Take a copy of curl, not built with ssl support. Build your GPLed
> application, linking it to this curl. There should unarguably be no
> problems here - everything involved is GPL-compatible.
>
> Now, go and build a copy of curl that is linked to op
* Andrew Suffield:
> Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true
> then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an
> unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant:
>
>> 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed
>> on debian-le
* Anthony DeRobertis:
>> Probably distribution. If you distribute just the OpenSSL of curl
>> version, it's rather clear that you intent that all applications
>> linking against curl also link against OpenSSL.
>
> So, if we were to compile it against a curl-nossl, that'd be fine. But
> if we the
* Andrew Suffield:
>> Probably distribution. If you distribute just the OpenSSL of curl
>> version, it's rather clear that you intent that all applications
>> linking against curl also link against OpenSSL.
>
> And if you distribute both?
If the OpenSSL version is not marked as the default one (
* Brian M. Hunt:
> I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
> and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
> software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
> software license like the GPL, with an added c
* Raul Miller:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> They did. Solaris 9 reportedly comes with GNU tools (I can't check it
>> myself because I don't have a machine running Solaris).
>
> You can get gnu tools for solaris from http://www.sunfreeware.com
>
> To my knowled
| eSvn License for Unix platforms:
|
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
| it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
| the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
| (at your option) any later version. This prog
* Sven Luther:
> Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
> ignorable for us, right ?
Only you if you interpret "eSvn License for Unix platforms" as a mere
placeholder (like "Licensing Option 2"). It's not clear if Debian is
a Unix platform.
* Sven Luther:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:16:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Sven Luther:
>>
>> > Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be
>> > ignorable for us, right ?
>>
>> Only you if you interpre
* Sven Luther:
>> I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to
>> prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to
>> make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably okay.
>
> Well, the only way giving this licencing would be the absense o
* Josh Triplett:
>> 3. Incorporation of Artwork
>>
>> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
>> are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
>> into another work which would not be subject to this license.
>
> This is a standard copyleft
* Andrew Suffield:
> No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
> same reasons.
Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
* Raul Miller:
> I'm not even sure what "indirect support of software patents" means --
> is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents "indirect
> support"?
If you try to convince your fellow Debian developers and upstream
developers to drop all defenses against software patents
* David Schleef:
> Names of people are (curiously) less protected.
Depends on the jurisdiction. If you use football player names in a
football game, you'll most likely get sued (because commercial game
developers have to pay $$$ to get licenses and the football
organizations don't want to lose t
* Andrew Suffield:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Andrew Suffield:
>>
>> > No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
>> > same reasons.
>>
>> Your indirect support of sof
* Juhapekka Tolvanen:
> Is this free software license according to DFSG:
>
> http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/
> http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/COPYING
The license discriminates against specific user groups and is
therefore not DFSG-compliant.
(And the claim of portability is extremely exagg
* mike skaggs:
> I have a copyright question for you. To the extent my company wants
> to use the Debian Linux O/S as an embedded O/S in a device, can you
> please advise what copyright notice I should cite to? I understand
> I must include the GPL language but after reading your policy
> manual
I've been asked for advice regarding copyleft ("GPL-like") font
licensing.
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF documents (and other document formats). In this
scenario, the GPL would re
* Raul Miller:
> Why would subsetting be a problem?
>
> I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
> which have been left out of the program being required.
The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to
the font.
Anyway, this isn't the case I'm real
* Raul Miller:
>> Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really interested in. And if there's
>> real source code, it should be reasonably clear that the GPL is
>> impractical.
>
> I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
> thinking "real sourced code" means.
A METAFONT p
* Paul Hampson:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's terms, the OS comes with
* Francesco Poli:
> Or are trademarks entirely orthogonal to Freeness issues?
They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
at that because they give
* Alexander Sack:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
>> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
>> DFSG-free. The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
>> at that because
* Elizabeth Fong:
> So... I guess the question is, what _can_ we do?
How much code are we talking about? Perhaps a clean room
reimplementation is the cheapest solution.
* Joel Aelwyn:
> Or convince someone (quite possibly the origional author) that it is worth
> their time to re-implement it. Doing work for hire means you don't own that
> copy, but it is in no way a prohibition against you making another copy on
> your own time, even if it were to look almost com
* Lewis Jardine:
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is
* Michael Poole:
[something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL]
> Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
> DFSG.
But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the
MPL (although I haven't compared the licenses word-for-word).
* Henning Makholm:
> | 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
> | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
> | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
> | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
> | Electronic Distribut
* Simon Josefsson:
>> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and
>> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the
>> brow' copyrights.
>
> I know I answered this already, but I thought I'd add that
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested that the tables f
* Matthew Palmer:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Lewis Jardine:
>>
>> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
>> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone direct
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
>> database. A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
>> and this is sufficient.
>
> But I'm not sure that the "producer&qu
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
>> Unfortunately, German law does not take into account whether the
>> database owner is a German national or not.
>
> Can you give me a cite for that? I was under the impression that
> Germany had simply translated the Directive literally into national
> law. And from http://
* Andreas Barth:
> As far as I know, sourceforges policy is to host only software free for
> everybody. Though their policy is not the same as ours, I think this
> violates even their policy.
SourceForge also offers paid hosting for proprietary software. I'm
pretty sure that appearance on the so
* Bernhard R. Link:
> Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
> redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not
> include the full licence text needed to be distributeable.
I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
section i
* Francesco Poli:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
>> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by
>> reference.
>
> I doubt that this woul
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php
This is t
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>> Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under
>> one and sometimes under another ought to still be free.
>
> It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of
> this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to
* Daniel James:
> Ancient history. That happened back in the 90's, and was the catalyst
> for work to begin on the free software alternatives, such as Ogg
> Vorbis. See for example:
>
> http://www.8hz.com/mp3/
There are more recent cases which have also been enforced against
embedded devices co
* Daniel James:
> Hi Florian,
>
>> There are more recent cases which have also been enforced against
>> embedded devices containing MP3 decoders.
>
> I couldn't find anything with a quick search on Google - any keywords
> I should try?
This is mostly a European issue, it seems:
http://www.hei
* Daniel James:
> The more I look into this issue, the more I am convinced that we have
> to promote the free formats better.
This is certainly true, I'm not too happy with Debian's policy on MP3
and its patents, either.
But keep in mind that many of those patents are fairly generic and
probabl
* Alex de Oliveira Silva:
> This license is in accordance with debian social contract?
>
> VOSTROM Public License will be Open Source
> http://oppleman.com/license/index.opp
This clause seems to rule out in-house versions:
| 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
| pu
* Humberto Massa Guimarães:
>> | 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
>> | publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using
>> | proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under
>> | conditions of this license;
>>
>> While this is proba
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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, as published
>
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>> Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
>> provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
>> included on all tape media and as
"Paul C. Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My question is: what are the guidelines on packaging code that has
> patented technology? Does GIMP's GIF support
JPEG is the better example. It's about in the same league as MP3, in
terms of enforcement, IMHO.
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
> meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only
> guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code
> they package.
The guidelines only require
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
> So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
> necessary.
It's true that many have
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
> GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
> invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
>
> Such things are very hard
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes the UnrealIRCd license:
> In order to continue with the download and installation of UnrealIRCd
> you must accept the following license agreement:
>
> [Full copy of GPL]
>
> The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at
> anytime as long
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that this
strengthening of non-free is a very favorable side effect of the
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This license is from the Creative Commons at
> http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa&format=text
> It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
>
> What do you think: DFSG free?
It depends. I
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't
>> consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for
>> editing.
>
> Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
Not really. The license simp
1 - 100 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
