istent with the
non-discrimination guideline.
I am confident that the LaTeX and Debian aims are
consistent. I am also confident that this discussion
has sufficient wisdom and good-will to find a solution
to the problem.
Jonathan Fine
Cambridge, UK
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states "The
>>license must not discriminate against any person or
>>group of persons."
>>
>>The proposed LaTeX license defines the C
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states "The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons."
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that are
not granted to other
pting or rejection discriminatory licenses.
The rest of the message is a response to the second argument
that the guideline does not apply.
Jonathan Fine
===
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states "The
> > license must not discriminate
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term "free software".
(Now there's a surprise.)
Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.
So let's try.
1. Software is executables, source files, etc.
2. The copyright holder can
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Softwa
Joachim Schrod wrote:
Jonathan Fine wrote:
I am not a license expert, but here is my take at this question:
I don't think that the passage quoted above is relevant here. We are not
talking about distributing a `Derived Work'. The question whether or not
source less distribution
7 matches
Mail list logo
