ook are in the manual and
that the book is under OPL as well.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it&#x
[ Note: I'm not subscribed to this ML so please Cc: me the answers,
please also Cc: the debian-ocaml-maint mailing list that I had included
in Cc: of this mail, tnx ]
Hi all,
I whish to maintain a package that include the electronic version of
an O'Reilly book.
The electronic version of the book
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:44:44AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I'm not really sure whether the DFSG should also be read as
> requiring the free right to make and sell hardcopies. One could argue
> either way from the text of the DFSG, I think.
>
> If the license you quoted were to app
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:45:40PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I hoped I made it clear that I'm unsure about the necessity of that.
> I'm soliciting comments from other debian-legal people.
I get an answer from O'Reilly, they told me that in their opinion the
reported notice (i.e. the text the
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:50:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > violate the DFSG.
>
> As someone who has packaged documentation before, I'm surprised t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:28:54PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > violate the DFSG.
>
> Which is false. The right to commercial redistribution for profit,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Okay, so it says "aggregate", and selling _a_ book does not do in an
> aggregate form. So I guess we need the right to modify and distribute
> for documentation to be free.
Following this idea, the requirement imposed by O'Reill
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:52:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Would they protest if someone bound hardcopies of the book together
> with (say) the GCC manual in a single volume, and sold such volumes
> for profit?
Regarding this point,
I just received a mail from O'Reilly and they change th
[ in lists reply, because I really need a wide range of, possibly
authoritative, opinions on this damned book! ]
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:48:45AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> So, if I understand O'Reilly's new view correctly, I could build a business
> around selling printed versions of
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:35:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence
> dedication to my dog? To be more realistic, how about the statement
> "Printed 2002 by FooBar Inc". It seems that allowing aggregate
> for-profit distribution is
... I managed to obtain another version of their "notes" for the book
redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian
> distribution, and
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:28:59PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > And these are the new "notes" that O'Reilly wants to be present in the
> > debian package of the book.
>
> I think that this note must be located within the book and at the
> download location as well, since it must not be spec
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:15:45AM +0100, Sven wrote:
> > The real problem seems to be not the issue about aggregation, but
> > specifically the case that distribution on different kinds of media is
> > being treated differently, in a way which lets one be free, but not
> > the other.
>
> Mmm, ye
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:10:39PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> But the content of the debian package is obtained from the website.
> (IIRC the source of the book is not available).
Yes, but a mail from O'Reilly publisher that explicitely state that the
version I hold downloaded from the web
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:53:32AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> However, they have to make the note publicaly available before the
> package is put together, because one must be able to check the license
> conditions without having to download the package. Where/when do they
> intend to ma
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:01:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Do they intend this as a "notes" or a "license"?
They call this "notice" but it can be safely considered a license
because is the only set of statemente that regulates the book
redistribution.
> >- commercial products that inclu
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:56:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, debian-legal guys, could you manage to write down a "notice" like
> > the reported, possibly and hopely changing only the above point, that
> > is ok with DFSG or there exists an intrinsic problem that can be solved?
>
>
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:47:07PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Please, tell me why we (as debian) have to care about "aggregation".
>
> Because we want to make sure that users of Debian have the freedom to
> reproduce copies of the software, at least if they jumpo through the
> easy hoop of
hint is appreciated,
TIA.
[1] http://www.galaxquery.org/
[2] http://www.galaxquery.org/LICENSE
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la dem
to much about this, do I?
> Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the
> software. IIRC this was already declared non-free.
Comments from other on this? /me hoping your memory is faulty :)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The whole license is CPL-based.
> Indeed. I guess that settles the issue.
Many thanks guys then!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,b
weeks or so.
Please go ahead, just a couple of suggestion:
- please mention why Expat is being suggested, the scenario of packing
DEPs together should be enough to convince the reader IMO
- please mention the fact that Expat is kinda MIT/X11 with , I feel the "Expat" name can sound we
as "naked
licensing" [1] the Debian trademark. I still hope to find some
DFSG-free way out of it, but the issue looks tricky and I seriously
doubt it can be solved in time for Squeeze.
Cheers.
[1] http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Naked_license
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Sci
If this is the case, do we have any precedent for a request like the
above ever been sent to others? (just to look for related material, not
because we need a precedent before going ahead, of course)
TIA,
Cheers.
[1] http://www.debian.org/trademark
[2] http://www.debian.org/logos/
--
Stefano Zacc
n pipe it to me, I'll then take care to forward it where
appropriate.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | .
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:57:07AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi everybody, thanks a lot to Francesco for getting me back into the
> loop and for providing some additional useful feedback.
To keep you posted on this issue: I've forwarded a request for advice to
the SP
old of the original cease and desist
mail. Has anyone managed to have it yet?
Cheers.
PS I'm not subscribed to -legal, please Cc:-me if you want to get my
attention.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -&l
on a regular basis.
Thanks for the heads up, Paul!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule
tead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket
permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will
see fit, now and in the future.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . .
agendas that object the current stance of the Debian project on
which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. Those discussions do not
belong to this (already crowded) bug log.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences
ce that, while discussing general matters is fine,
discussing specific issues is in violation of what the patent-faq
recommends Free Software projects to do.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/za
rly do), I remind you that
the right path to escalate is not starting a thread against the decision
on -project and/or -legal, but rather propose to override the decision
via the appropriate Debian mechanisms.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître
ement,
worrying about the fact that simply providing URLs to tarballs wouldn't
be considered enough? Or is it something else?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former
33 matches
Mail list logo
