John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It prohibits derivatives and then goes on to say that you may publish
> partial copies. The trouble is, as far as copyright is concerned, the only
> part of a derivative that matters is the partial copy it contains.
However, as far as contract law is con
I wrote:
> The _Linux Programmers Guide_ is non-free because its license contains
> this: "If you make money with it the authors want a share."
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> i want a pony.
I have several for sale. What did you have in mind?
> that doesn't seem very binding to me.
It could mean "I
John Hasler wrote:
> Andrea Fanfani writes:
> > Now I have to package the other guides (user guide, network guide, kernel
> > guide etc. etc.). this books are under the licence of ldp... and I need a
> > definitive opinion: the licence of linux documentation project is or not
> > DFSG compliant ?
>
- Forwarded message from "Brian E. Ermovick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:47:49 -0500
From: "Brian E. Ermovick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Upstream Email
Hrmm -- I'm not about to subscribe to -devel and all that just cause
t
Andrea Fanfani writes:
> Now I have to package the other guides (user guide, network guide, kernel
> guide etc. etc.). this books are under the licence of ldp... and I need a
> definitive opinion: the licence of linux documentation project is or not
> DFSG compliant ?
The _Linux Programmers Guide_
> Right, but there's no real difference between:
> 1- No charge, other than an "at-cost" distribution fee
> 2- You may not charge a fee for this Package itself.
> You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
> this Package.
>From the DFSG:
The license of a Debian c
Darren O. Benham writes:
> ...basicly, the license authors put in a phrase saying don't charge but
> we're not going to check up on you so you can really charge whatever you
> can get away with as long as you say it's for "distribution fees".
You need not even say that. You can put an Artisitic l
Hello Andrea,
I wondered why these great docs weren't packaged. They were even
in Slackware years ago when I used that!
So I decided to package it. I looked at it and decided that HTML
would be best, but couldn't find the tools to build them. I
email the author (see below) but never got a rep
Hi,
On 12 Apr, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> I believe that the Flick IDL compiler (GPL libraries, BSD Runtimes/header
> files) may produce compatible IDL. I am researching that now that the
> license issue has been brought to my attention.
Ah yes! Thanks for bringing up Flick. I believe Flick als
non free I suppose :-)
Regards
Andrea Fanfani
--
Andrea Fanfani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
COPYING CONDITIONS
Hi all, i'm working for the package of LDP linux
documentation project.
I have package:
1)linux installation and getting started guide (3.2) that is under gpl,
2) italian translation of system admin guide (author lars wirzenius - gpl)
3) linux modules programming guide (under gpl)
these three
> Unless there is an alternative IDL compiler that allows people to
> put together applications for omniorb, I think omniorb and omniorb-doc
> should be in contrib.
>
I believe that the Flick IDL compiler (GPL libraries, BSD Runtimes/header
files) may produce compatible IDL. I am researching that
Hi,
On 12 Apr, Raul Miller wrote:
> Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Only omniorb-devel has the IDL compiler in it. Consequently, when the
> > archive has been properly configured by the maintainer, I will upload -5
> > with revised license info. omniorb-devel will go to non-free
Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please note that omniORB currently consists of 3 packages:
> omniorb
> omniorb-devel
> omniorb-doc.
>
> This is as of 2.7.1-4, which should be landing in "unstable" as soon as the
> archive maintainer adds the new splits to the override file.
>
> Only
14 matches
Mail list logo
