Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill

documentation > to be software. difficult trick that, to simultaneously believe that > something is and is not at the same time. > > > the DFSG is *Guidelines*, not *Rules*. Loony Literal Fundamentalists > need to remember that and take a reality check before commenting. >

Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD

on' Would be perfectly alright as far as DFSG 6 goes? I would argue that distributing is a form of use. (Yes, this license would violate 1, 5, and 8 even if 6 is fine, but it makes the point.) -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. pgpKsYE1BSB5i.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Crack license, is it free?

ams as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution > provided that YOU DO NOT ADVERTISE this package as a product of your > own. This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go in main. Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Z

Re: Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.18

e restricted to a specific use: "Linux". > 2) "freely distributed" doesn't include "modify and distribute >modified copy", right? A simple question, at the time of the writing of this, was Linux already under the GPL? If it was, then intent is

Two large groups of non-free fonts in main.

ION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOURCE CODE. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. Why blow away at a partition when you can