On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:54:26AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the issue
is murky; as far as I
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the issue
is murky; as far as I know, there's no consensus on this issue on
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Solution
There are a number of things that can be done to avoid this problem.
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
similar licences.
Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
(As an aside, I do wonder why we bother with platforms and rebuttals at
all in our DPL election process -- I suspect people make up their minds
about how they'll vote without such documents exerting much in the way
of influence at all.)
I'll say
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400,
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
Can you actually write this section and post it here? Because I have a
practical problem:
Hi,
One of the packages I maintain is monit[0], they now have a long awaited
feature using SSL. I have read that GPL and OpenSSL is not compatible and have
been mailing with the developers of monit. They asked if was okay for Debian
to add add this to the license:
This program is released
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400,
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
Can you actually write this section and
Scripsit Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
after the first roundup[1] upload was rejected, Richard Jones (the upstream
author) made the license a bit more clear.
Here is the new scoop.
It looks quite harmless on first read, but it would be easier to be
sure if you could provide us with a
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a section
which explains how your document can be
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:46:18PM +0200, Fredrik Steen wrote:
Hi,
One of the packages I maintain is monit[0], they now have a long awaited
feature using SSL. I have read that GPL and OpenSSL is not compatible and have
You are correct. OpenSSL has an advertising clause which is incompatible
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:27:05PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am seeking seconds for this proposal.
I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work
of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and possibly avoid referring directly to MSWord as well - a reference to
'binary, closed file formats' would probably do the same job.
Yes, that might be better. I'd avoid the words closed and binary,
as MS is already trying to redefine both.
A Microsoft Word document is probably source code rather than
object code: people do edit Microsoft Word documents, and people
don't usually do automatic translations into Microsoft Word format
(though they do sometimes, for example when exporting from another
word processor).
Anyway, I don't
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
similar licences.
Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not
advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:46:18PM +0200, Fredrik Steen wrote:
One of the packages I maintain is monit[0], they now have a long awaited
feature using SSL. I have read that GPL and OpenSSL is not compatible and have
been mailing with the developers of monit. They asked if was okay for Debian
to
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:23:44PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
been mailing with the developers of monit. They asked if was okay for
Debian
to add add this to the license:
This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that
compiling, linking, and/or using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It looks quite harmless on first read, but it would be easier to be
sure if you could provide us with a link to the reasons why the first
upload was rejected. The WNPP bug report you
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
plain text would simply mean that i can type `vim something`, and have
the text appear in front of me. presumably, those strange foreign chaps
already have their systems set up to handle those strange foreign chars.
But *I* don't. So it's not a
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, iain d broadfoot wrote:
but that allows MSWord docs, since i can edit them with Abiword, OOo
etc...
maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
must be editable with free software and must be saved in a Free format?
I'm not sure where this
* Mark Rafn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, iain d broadfoot wrote:
but that allows MSWord docs, since i can edit them with Abiword, OOo
etc...
maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
must be editable with free software and must be saved
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:42:16PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The above doesn't actually add anything to the rights already granted by
the GPL. The specific permission that's missing is *redistribution* of
binaries linked against OpenSSL, so that's what their exemption needs to
say.
Ah,
24 matches
Mail list logo
