James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > 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)
> >
> > What ar
Many thanks to Henning, John, Sam and Thomas;
I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
much appreciated.
James
--
James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james
* * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Confe
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> much appreciated.
Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
Surely a D
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> > package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> > much appreciated.
>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
> > package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
> > much appreciated.
>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:37:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> >
> > e.g. doc-rfc ?
>
> The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may
Scripsit James Bromberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In December, 2000, the mod_backhand author wrote to me:
> > You, of course, don't need my permission to make it up into=20
> > a debian package (given the license,) but I appreciate you asking! =20
> > I would be delighted if you packaged and maintai
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> > >
> > > e.g. doc-rfc ?
> >
> > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> > doesn't mean ...
>
> Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified ex
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
> > Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
> If that was the case then the Apache package sho
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We could get the cited "prior written permission", but if that
> permission applies only to Debian then I think we run into DFSG
> clause 8, "License must not be specific to Debian".
I don't think so. I think DFSG #8 means "the software must be
free
Just had a reply from a Scilab author, and this is what I replied
back. He gave me permission to post it here.
Peter
--- Forwarded Message
From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Making Scilab free (as in speech) software
In-reply-to: (Your message o
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > We could get the cited "prior written permission", but if that
> > permission applies only to Debian then I think we run into DFSG
> > clause 8, "License must not be specific to Debian".
>
> I don't think so. I think D
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:56:39AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified except by the
> > holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to
> > meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted.
>
> You have misunder
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The fact is that it is against the FSF's goals to have the GPL be at all
> modifyable. Given that our goals are similar, we're not likely to declare
> the GPL as non-free. Suggesting that we should, as you seem to be doing,
> can only be regarded as flamebait
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm. In /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright there is this clause:
>
> 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache"
> nor may "Apache" appear in their names without prior written
> permission of the Apache Group.
>
> This seems
Hi, debian legal list!
In these days, there was a discussion about free fonts on this
list, so I guess this fits here:
I would like to start a free music project, and therefore maybe
adopt the DFSG as a point to start from. The only problem I see
is that in some cases, the enforcement of source
Hi, folks!
This is not really Debian related, but nevertheless, please have a
look at the license draft below.
Word explaination:
A tracker is a raster sequencer program with a built-in
sample-based synthesizer, or the user of such a program.
A sample is a digital sound recording.
Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:27:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
>> I am taking this licence as DFSG OK, and will be trying to get this
>> package into "main" after a tad more testing. Your help is very
>>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:50:06PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The fact is that it is against the FSF's goals to have the GPL be at all
> > modifyable. Given that our goals are similar, we're not likely to declare
> > the GPL as non-free. Suggest
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The importance of being able to modify any particular piece of software
> may not always be critical to some in all cases, but as a general rule it
> is NECESSARY to be able to modify the code you run on your machine. It is
> not so
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> such a philisophical view, the technical ramifications of not allowing
> modification of code are simple and worrysome - usually leading to the
> situation we have with the people in Redmond and other software developers
> worldwide:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> I am pretty sure that such a clause has always been a part of the Apache
> licenses. The intent is pretty simple - we don't want people calling
> their commercial derivatives "Apache++", "ApachePro", etc.
I think there was an ear
22 matches
Mail list logo
