Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of
> available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the
> Free Software and Open Source community (communities?).
However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the prob
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:43:10PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Branden Robinson:
>
> BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
> BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
> BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
> BR> (font|e
Branden Robinson:
BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
BR> (font|executable|data file), to include a disclaimer in the
BR> copyright info about th
DS> Does it cover Latin-3?
Yes, they do.
DS> If it doesn't, then there's a number of characters that could be
DS> added in minutes with the right tools to provide for support of
DS> Esperanto, Maltese and other languages, but we can't, because of
DS> the license.
We share your concern, and we di
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that are
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> put there knowing that)
Wh
non-free.
> The INRIA and the ENPC authorize you free of charge to circulate
> and distribute for no charge, for non-commercial purposes the source
> and/or object code of DERIVED SOFTWARE on any present and future
> support, providi
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> As you can imagine, the inclusion of the Lucidux fonts into the
> XFree86 source tree didn't go without a fair amount of hesitation.
It's not my intent to imply that XFree86's decision was either incorrect,
or flawed in process.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> We concluded that the main reason why we insist on the right to modify
> software is the need to maintain it. After carefully checking the
> technical, as opposed to artistic, quality of the Lucidux fonts (it is
> excellent, tha
Martin Quinson wrote:
> A new version of Scilab (a matlab-like program) is out, and they claim this
> version to be free. (for now, it is in the non-free part of debian)
>
> http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt
>
> I would like to have your input on the DFSG complience of this
> licence.
Hello,
A new version of Scilab (a matlab-like program) is out, and they claim this
version to be free. (for now, it is in the non-free part of debian)
Extract from the announcement:
| Others improvements
| ---
| A more explicit "free licence". It is no longer required to send bac
Me (Juliusz Chroboczek):
JC> I think we need the DFSG to explicitly provide an exception for
JC> fonts and artwork.
Branden Robinson:
BR> I disagree. To do so would introduce far too much gray area, in my
BR> opinion, and get Debian involved in even more licensing flamewars than we
BR> currentl
Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As I point out below, the legal question is whether or not MS has any
> claim to copyrighted materials NOT authored by the person using the
> service.
You mean, if someone, without Sun's permission, sends the Solaris
source code to a hotmail address, does Mi
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS said:
> Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The problem? In a nutshell, any outgoing information, software
> > and/or services of your original copyright/license/IP are "dual
> > copyrighted/licensed" to Microsoft c/o this new agreement. This can
> > be _very_dangerous
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Why? If someone who is contributing to a free software project wants,
> for whatever reason, to dual licence their code to Microsoft, you
> can't really stop them from doing so. If you insist that all
> contributors give an exc
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The problem? In a nutshell, any outgoing information, software
> and/or services of your original copyright/license/IP are "dual
> copyrighted/licensed" to Microsoft c/o this new agreement. This can
> be _very_dangerous_ from the standpoint of free software
>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 10:28:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I missed the "with or without modification" in the header, so thought this
> > clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that
> > been the case, DFSG 3 wo
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I missed the "with or without modification" in the header, so thought this
> clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that
> been the case, DFSG 3 would be the controlling consideration and fail.
> But the permission for derivate
18 matches
Mail list logo
