On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 12:36:53PM -0800, John Stevenson wrote:
> Could we add a home/reference web page to each package?
> It would naturally scale with the system.
We already do. See /usr/doc//copyright.
It is also possible to put an URL in the package description, but many
packages don't *ha
Hi,
First of all, you had the following headers:
Reply-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Mail-Followup-To: aj, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
I don't know which one you wanted me to use, and "aj" is not a legal
email destination on my machine in any case. Looks like something may
be messed u
Could we add a home/reference web page to each package?
It would naturally scale with the system.
--
---
John K. Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those who vote aren't important, those who count the vote matter. J Stalin
This is surely offtopic for -policy by now. Reply-to: set to -legal.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:19:30AM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Waters) wrote:
> > And what exactly *is* the license of a .dsc file? Is it legal for
> > someone to distribute a .dsc by itself?
> Well, in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Waters) wrote:
> If the .deb needs to have one, why doesn't the .diff.gz, which is
> surely also GPL'd?
By the reasoning proposed by some on this list, it should.
> And what exactly *is* the license of a .dsc file? Is it legal for
> someone to distribute a .dsc by itsel
> > In addition the copyright has been assigned to FSF in only a small number of
> > cases. It may be that, to save wasted intellectual effort from all
> > concerned,
> > the maintainers of packages where copyright has been assigned to the FSF
> > should
> > include a copy of the GPL in those pa
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, John Lines wrote:
>
> > By being the first, and most frequently mentions Free Software license the
> > GPL
>
> Survey says...Bzzzt! The GPL is a latecomer in the free software arena.
Um, the Copyleft predates the BSD free license. T
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, John Lines wrote:
> By being the first, and most frequently mentions Free Software license the GPL
Survey says...Bzzzt! The GPL is a latecomer in the free software arena.
> has become the best known. Most authors of free software are not as interested
> in licensing as the m
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:35:34AM +, John Lines wrote:
> This would free up the FSF lawyers to look at more interesting questions,
> such as, if I am installing 20 servers with RedHat Linux, how many copies
> do I need to buy ?
*plonk*
--
G. Branden Robinson | We either lear
By being the first, and most frequently mentions Free Software license the GPL
has become the best known. Most authors of free software are not as interested
in licensing as the members of this debate. They just stick some words about
the GPL somewhere, often dont bother with including a copy in th
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> Heck, I just duplicated Manoj's feat of downloading the 'ls' binary
> from the FSF's own site at ftp.gnu.org, and I can't help but notice
> that not only does the binary not contain the GPL (I ran strings to
> check), but there isn't even a copy of the GPL
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:12:10PM -0600, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> So... we're caught on a technicality. We're supposedly the "most" free
> of Linux distributions out there. We're violating the GPL, one of the
> most popular licenses for our own packages.
It has not been established that we
12 matches
Mail list logo
