Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives. Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first? I didn't find it helpful in this case. 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation is a starting point, if you translate it to documents. I think it depends whether the first work could be replaced with an equivalent without requiring changes to the later one. Oh, thanks. This is a criterion that can be well used for documentation (as opposed to the software-centric , | depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, | function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics | of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). ` AIUI, the GPL can't override copyright law and it only grants extra permissions. It doesn't take any away. A text published with no licence defaults to all rights reserved usually. Thanks, that also made things clearer to me. It sounds so obvious once someone said it... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL - specifying the preferred form for modification
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Glenn Maynard wrote: The GPL very deliberately does not specify the preferred form for modification, and authors shouldn't do so (at least not in a legally-binding way or an attempt to interpret the GPL). Right. I think there is no harm in saying My preferred form for modification is the texinfo source, as long as it is *not* a legally-binding change. We have suggested such things to make things clearer for people who are uncomfortable and fearful about the use of the phrase source code for documentation, so as indicate that it is a meaningful phrase. We do not want such statements to act as a restriction. Yes, it was in this sense that I suggested this addition. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Thank you, Andrew, Michael, MJ and Raul for your comments. I was asking this question because I got involved in a license discussion with an author who published a preliminary version of a document on a preliminary licsense, the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. During the discussion, he asked for a recommendation for a free license for his text, should he wish to distribute it. He seemed to be concerned about other people making unfair use of the text (without having any real clue about what is fair use probably). And he was clearly looking for something that would bind everybody to use the same free conditions for texts based on it: He was objecting to putting it into public domain. I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a text under GPL. But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a possible lawsuit. Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? With such a license I would hope that we could convince individual authors to switch from GFDL to this GPL-doc (of course not the FSF...). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Frank Küster wrote: I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a text under GPL. But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a possible lawsuit. Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? You could (if you removed the GPL preamble as required by the FSF), but the resulting license is very likely to be incompatible with the GPL. I strongly recommend just using the standard GPL. If you really feel that such clarifications are necessary, you could add a (non-binding) clarification stating that program corresponds to text and object code corresponds to typeset form, and add an exception to any clauses you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, ... This isn't really the right forum for that. Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? It would be possible (see GPL FAQ cited previously), but I think it's superfluous because the GPL's definition of Program is flexible enough to include documents. It's undesirable because GPL-doc would be incompatible with GPL unless you make specific provision for a LGPL-style upgrade. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on their pages. Where is it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell. It does not seem to publish performance statistics and my experience has been disappointing. The FSF publications about documentation licensing have been getting worse, too, as they dig in instead of discussing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, ... This isn't really the right forum for that. Well, hm, yes, no. Indeed the case that made me post this question dealt with a new document. But on the other hand, I have a problem as a Debian developer with existing documents in existing packages: Namely that I have to approach upstream authors and tell them We don't think the GFDL you have chosen for your document is a free license. The logical question they ask me is What else should I use as a license? Therefore, I assume that more maintainers will get to this question once sarge is released. We should be prepared and have a good answer to it. And it *might* even be that having a good answer to it will increase our chances to get FSF to relisence their stuff: It's not only about the FSF, but also about individual contributors who might put some pressure on them; and they might be more inclined to do this when they see us as a constructive participant of the discussion¹ Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? Do you expect that they would recommend anything else but GFDL? Or if there are differing opinions there, that there will be more than just one more flamewar about the GFDL? Furthermore, I am a Debian developer who is primarily skilled for doing my work on my packages, and who sometimes has a good relation to upstream authors. But I don't have much experience with legal considerations, and I wouldn't want to come out of such a discussion with some recommendation to an upstream author, only to find later that the license isn't approved by debian-legal - for reasons I understand, but couldn't find myself. Therefore I am asking here for advice and help. Regards, Frank ¹even if in particular their cases, the obvious alternative is the license of the documented program, GPL -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? It would be possible (see GPL FAQ cited previously), but I think it's superfluous because the GPL's definition of Program is flexible enough to include documents. It might be flexible enough from a legal point of view. But then, it seems the minds of authors aren't always flexible enough. Perhaps I would have to help them bend and stretch... It's undesirable because GPL-doc would be incompatible with GPL unless you make specific provision for a LGPL-style upgrade. For real standalone documentation, I don't know wether this would be a problem in practice. Hm. I should read about compatibility of GPL'ed code with BSD or artistic licensed code. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: The Nutch Software License
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you that because I sent a RFP for nutch... http://www.nutch.org/LICENSE.txt For the archive record (please always include license texts, not just a link): --- /* * The Nutch Software License, Version 1.0 * * Copyright (c) 2003 The Nutch Organization. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the *distribution. * * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, *if any, must include the following acknowledgment: * This product includes software developed by the *Nutch Organization (http://www.nutch.org/). *Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, *if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. * * 4. The names Nutch and Nutch Organization must *not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this *software without prior written permission. For written *permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called Nutch, *nor may Nutch appear in their name, without prior written *permission of the Nutch Organization. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, * INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE * NUTCH ORGANIZATION OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, * INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, * OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING * NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, * EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * * * This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals * on behalf of the Nutch Organization. For more information on the Nutch * Organization, please see http://www.nutch.org/. * * This product includes software developed by the Apache Software Foundation * (http://www.apache.org). */ --- As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not appear in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching; I think it should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. I really wish people would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given free software that it really was better without ... -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Nutch Software License
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:45:44 -0500 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you that because I sent a RFP for nutch... http://www.nutch.org/LICENSE.txt For the archive record (please always include license texts, not just a link): Sorry, it was the first time that I posted on debian-legal... I was a bit confused ;-) As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not appear in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching; I think it should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. I really wish people would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given free software that it really was better without ... I think they used that license for that something of their source derives from Apache software. There was an actual difference if they did adopt the new 'Apache License' (Version 2.0, January 2004)? -- Luca Brivio Web:http://icebrook.altervista.org Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto (P. Terentius Afer) pgpz6PF6irW2h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nutch Software License
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not appear in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching; I think it should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. I really wish people would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given free software that it really was better without ... I think they used that license for that something of their source derives from Apache software. There was an actual difference if they did adopt the new 'Apache License' (Version 2.0, January 2004)? Sorry if I was unclear. The Apache 1.1 license (which this is based on) is considered free--it can go in main. It would be nice if propagation of this license could be avoided by switching to a better one--it's not the best license, with the problems I and Matthew mentioned--but there's currently no requirement to do so to go in Debian. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anonymity and copyright in the U.S. (was: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test)
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:36:40PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but I don't think it renders the license invalid. At least in the US, the copyright would still be enforceable if they actually wrote the software, since a copyright notice is no longer required. (Well, ignoring the effect upon statutory damages.) However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work appropriately. Any Stephen King fans here? Anyone have access to any copies of his Richard Bachman novels from before it was disclosed that Richard Bachman was a nom de plume of Stephen King? As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright. For a more recent example, see the novel _Primary Colors_[1]. [1] http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/primary_colors.htm -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:09:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I believe that most of us have come to the conclusion that self-protection clauses are free. These are of the form: If you make a legal claim stating that use (/distribution/etc.) of this software infringes a patent, then you may not use (/distribute/etc.) this software. I'm not sure why you think that (I can't even think of a license with a clause like this in; this isn't even the extremely limited form present in the GPL, you may not modify/redistribute unless you grant everybody everything they need under any law to do the stuff enumerated in this license, this-is-just-an-observation-not-a-restriction). I think the RPSL[1] does that, or close to it: 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual unless terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: (d) upon written notice from Licensor if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against any third party alleging that the Covered Code itself (excluding combinations with other software or hardware) infringes any patent (including by cross- claim or counter claim in a lawsuit). I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to be don't mix patents and copyrights, but I havn't seen much of a case for that--it seems to say don't try to protect against patents via copyright, but copyright is all we have available. Another is maybe patents are evil, but it's not the place of a free license to prevent them from being used. I disagree with that on its face; there are no redeeming values to offensive patent enforcement, and I see no harm in defending against it. (Some people consider software hoarding a major problem, and they use copyright--in the form of the GPL--to protect against that, too.) On the other hand, I don't think these clauses help. The people most projects are likely to be in danger from are not companies who care about their license to the allegedly-patent-infringing software. I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect companies to give up their ability to use patents defensively, either, which most or all of these clauses do. (I do think Nathanael is misstating the case a bit: despite the long debates on this topic, I still don't have a very strong opinion myself, and I don't think there are yet any consenses about patent defense clauses at all.) [1] https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl.txt -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one
Your papers are not in order, citizen... On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and should come into play here. Privacy in one's person includes fundamental [...] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/06/msg00096.html Ah, but my fifth freedom is not in the DFSG, so under the nouveau scheme of license analysis that some would have us apply, we are morally obliged to completely disregard it. Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free software or not, not a substitute for the whole thing. Certain well-known people in the project have stridently insisted to me, however, that this opinion puts me into an extremely small minority. I think signify[1] has shown artificial intelligence again -- there is indeed a tension between the literal-minded DFSG fundamentalists (if the DFSG doesn't mention it, it must be free) and those who actually cogitate openly about what the DFSG was written to defend, and how it's going to take more than a list propositions recited by rote to uphold our freedoms. What is the virtue that DFSG strict constructionists are upholding? Low mailing list traffic? Developer laziness? Ignorance of legal issues that affect the work we do? The spread of Debian main across as many UDFs as possible in the next release? Are these things really more important to us than freedom? [1] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/signify -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: anonymity and copyright in the U.S. (was: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Branden Robinson wrote: As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright. Definetly. Just to clarify, in case it was still unclear, my primary concern isn't with the rights of the copyright holder being preserved (they are preserved regardless) but with the ability of people to make derived works from such a work, and whether or not anonymous copyright holders with (questionable?) licensing agreements curtails the distribution of derivative works. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a right to privacy is not in the DFSG, therfore you don't have one
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Your papers are not in order, citizen... On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:04:25PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: All in all, I think that Branden's fifth freedom[1] is important, and should come into play here. Privacy in one's person includes fundamental [...] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/06/msg00096.html Ah, but my fifth freedom is not in the DFSG, so under the nouveau scheme of license analysis that some would have us apply, we are morally obliged to completely disregard it. This argument also says that you must eat a cat and pet a chicken before modifying this work is free (since freedom to not do those things isn't explicitly in the DFSG). Fortunately, the DFSG does have explicit requirements about restrictions to modification; just as capture a rabid bear clauses can be legitimately called non-free, so can give me your name, if such clauses are considered onerous. So, I don't think the strict it's-not-in-the-letter-of-the-DFSG-how-dare-you-keep-my-warez-out-of-main? arguments have any merit at all. (FWIW, that's just an extended I agree.) There are some people who argue that the project can call things that aren't explicitly in the DFSG non-free, but it'd take the whole project to do so, not just lists created for that discussion (d-legal and d-project). I believe they also claim a GR isn't necessary. This leads to a we can do it, but there's no way to convince me that we actually have, which is functionally equivalent to we can't do it. I don't think this argument has any merit, either--if people want to attempt to increase exposure to these issues, go ahead, but don't attempt to cripple the project's ability to deal with onerous license restrictions in the meantime. Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free software or not, not a substitute for the whole thing. Certain well-known people in the project have stridently insisted to me, however, that this opinion puts me into an extremely small minority. I don't believe you're in the minority at all--if you are, it's probably time to scrap the DFSG entirely, since the Project must no longer care about Free Software principles at all. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anonymity and copyright in the U.S. (was: Need to Identify Contributions and the Dissident Test)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:54:34 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote: Any Stephen King fans here? Here I am! Anyone have access to any copies of his Richard Bachman novels from before it was disclosed that Richard Bachman was a nom de plume of Stephen King? No, but I read _The regulators_ that was published after Richard Bachman's death by pseudonym cancer... ;-) Anyway I know that five novels were published by King under that pseudonym before Bachman's real identity was disclosed... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpmStbzaVsFs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nutch Software License
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:28:32 -0500 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: As someone said, this is the old Apache license. XXX may not appear in the name of derivative works is ugly and over-reaching; I think it should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. I really wish people would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given free software that it really was better without ... I think they used that license for that something of their source derives from Apache software. There was an actual difference if they did adopt the new 'Apache License' (Version 2.0, January 2004)? Sorry if I was unclear. The Apache 1.1 license (which this is based on) is considered free--it can go in main. It would be nice if propagation of this license could be avoided by switching to a better one--it's not the best license, with the problems I and Matthew mentioned--but there's currently no requirement to do so to go in Debian. You were not unclear. The current license is free, but what would you suggest them? -- Luca Brivio Web:http://icebrook.altervista.org Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto (P. Terentius Afer) pgp6jiGjSbAAw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-alsa-devel] RFS: alsa-tools
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we have to split the alsa-tools source into two packages, one free and one non-free/contrib? It will make it a bit harder. No. Unfortunately, that is not the case. All of the source for packages in main must satisfy the DFSG. For example, if there are some non-free, but distributable, files in the original tar ball, those have to be taken out and a new original tar ball made. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Walter Landry writes: When Debian puts Eclipse into main, Debian is distributing Eclipse to be used with Kaffe. When it is in contrib, Debian is distributing Eclipse to be used by something outside of main. To the extent the first part is true, the second part is false. Also to the extent the first part is true, it is irrelevant to the GPL. To use an example that should be clearer: According to your argument, when Debian puts GPL-incompatible package X into main, Debian is distributing package X to be used with Linux. If that is true, when package X is in contrib, Debian is still distributing package X to be used with Linux. That OS Y provides a Linux personality is irrelevant. Debian also distributes GPL-incompatible documentation in PDF format. To the best of my knowledge, the only packages in main that can display PDFs are licensed under the GPL. Why does this not create the same kind of whole work capture effect? PDF may not have the language flexibility of Java, but it has programmable features. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
