[sorry for the broad CC]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
wrote:
Is this solution OK for everybody?
I see nothing objectionable from a DFSG perspective in the language you
have proposed.
Thanks for working on this issue!
--
G. Branden Robinson
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, ...
How is that different to (2)?
(2) The distributor
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
CDs are bloody cheap only if you produce a certain amount of them (e.g.
2000 Debian CD sets which would be 28,000 CDs). If you produce only 500
Nice calculation... *shiver* *fear*
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
Could you reread and check?
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be
Registering LaTeX as a trademark would have given you much more power
(i.e. real power) to discourage such things without requiring such high
standards for others wanting to play around with the code.
It wouldn't have given any protection at all to users of the package
longtable (which wasn't
but we can assume either position without having any
bearing on LPPL being DSFG-complient or not.
right?
yes exactly, just as i said
me It is also irrelevant to a general discussion of LPPL,
However the point keeps being re-raised:-)
David
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 06:30:05PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
wrote:
please forward the LICENSE
file distributed with the OpenSSL version that Debian provides, so I can
make sure it's truly identical to what I think it is. Hopefully they
don't change the wording of their license
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
latex.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
Prior to the latex2e licence
Err, are you sure this is largely due to the license change, and not to
other changes in the Unix world?
I don't want to disapoint you but it's most likely true that most tex
use doesn't happen in the unix world:-) (although as it happens a good
part of latex was written on a Debian
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:32:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, _technically_ you can symlink it (or write a wrapper), but
_technically_ you could just mv it, too. But we try to adhere to the
spirit as well as the letter of the license, don't we, which would stop
us from doing that, don't
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
Err... They have received the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:38:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As you maybe already know, RealNetworks (the guys behind RealPlayer
client and server) want to release their next version under an
OSI-certified licence. See http://open.helixcommunity.org
Clause 13.7 of the RPSL violates
Branden,
can you do me the favor and try to clearify for me when in your opinion the
DSFG 4 clause is
applicable for a license.
Question 1:
Suppose you have a program source foo.c with some license.
Suppose this license restricts foo.c from being modified but allows
distribution of foo.c
plus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Does the draft LPPL prevent me from distributing a program called
SniffenTeX which is a modified derivative work of LaTeX, but
would be run by a user as sniffentex and carries a banner
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not a DD. For those interested in my opinion anyway: What if I
want to modify Latex to remove the filename mapping? If the
DFSG-freeness is dependent on that mechanism, then I can't remove it
(for the best or worst of technical reasons) and have it remain
sorry, I shouldn't have tried to answer your private mail in haste while
getting my coat to rush to the office.
I made a two typos ad least and one important one:
as of now it would mean that for each individual work under LPPL you have
to
folow its license meaning you have to rename the work
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:02, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
as I said, sorry that was not deliberate. But for me work and file name
within the LATeX
context is very tightly linked. I mean, if you have the single file
overcite.sty
under LPPL then what other is the work then this file, ie how
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:31:57 -0500
Would it work for you to require the following?
- if the whole is named LaTeX, every changed file must be renamed
- if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without
renaming
What about files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:02:40 +0100, Mittelbach, Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
follow its license meaning that you have to rename the files that
you change (i thought that was ...
as I said, sorry that was not deliberate. But for me work
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 10:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
What about files that are individually released under LPPL? There are
hundreds of files contributed by individual authors (and I presume
being works under DFSG#4) with the rename if you change license.
I've seen that some people include the
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-
The requirement for modifications to LaTeX to be in files with different
names from the original files, when combined with the ability for LaTeX
to do filename mapping for file references, does not constitute a
violation of the Debian Free
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:19:15PM +0100, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
Branden,
can you do me the favor and try to clearify for me when in your
opinion the DSFG 4 clause is applicable for a license.
Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
direct, if generalized,
Jeff Licquia writes:
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into LaTeX, though,
they create a derived work, with its own licensing
More nuances of language.
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes to
debian-legal:
that you produce sniffenlatex which has its own complete tree and in
there has identical file names to the pristine LaTeX tree so that both
trees live side by side.
For new LPPL language it might make sense
Glenn Maynard writes:
I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
licensing problems is a good idea.
they are related but you are right this is a separate issue and should be
discussed separately.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the one area where there will probably be disagreement is over
the renaming rule however that eventually gets worded.
However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
characterisable as it can't work or I'd have no respect for
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:46, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into LaTeX, though,
Um, no. The real objection is: it's not DFSG free.
Last time I asked for an objective list of places where people thought
LPPL didn't meet the DFSG, someone posted such a list and Frank I think
addressed all the raised points in his last draft, didn't he?
The other comments are attempts to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:46:18 +0200, Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls
tree of files at once, we could, i think live with the idea (it
is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a possible though
not encouraged
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as far as TeX is concerned I tried to put up references to what could be
called a license and copyright notices in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00321.html
and Walter is wrong, it concerns file names and
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
can you do me the favor and try to clearify for me when in your opinion
the DSFG 4 clause is applicable for a license.
You asked for Branden's opinion, which I hope he'll give. I'll add mine.
DFSG 4 has 3 sentences, the first two of which are
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to be
LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps to keep that thing
LaTeX uniform between different
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
As I said earlier, the entire reason this sentence exists, as I
understand it, was as the result of an unsuccessful effort to persuade
Daniel J. Bernstein and/or the University of Washington to license some
software under DFSG-free terms. In both
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3
decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that
time went along the lines of Prove it, and nothing ever happened. No
mp3 decoder was ever moved to non-free, to the best of my knowledge.
Has there been any
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:37:21AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only
be done via trademark.
IANAL, TINLA.
Trademark protection can sometimes be enforced without the actual filing
of a trademark application, depending on use, although
Hi all,
I would like to know what you think about this license :
http://www.freeusp.org/FreeUSP_License.html
Could it be assimilated as GPL ? Would the software licensed under these
terms be accepted in debian ?
Tahnks for your help and sorry for my english.
Vincent
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:51PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3
decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that
time went along the lines of Prove it, and nothing ever happened. No
mp3 decoder was ever moved
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
g tr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know what you think about this license :
http://www.freeusp.org/FreeUSP_License.html
Could it be assimilated as GPL ? Would the software licensed under these
terms be accepted in debian ?
Tahnks for your help and sorry for my english.
Hi M.!
You wrote:
There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability
or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator
of the patents, as they have already been granted.
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
Do these patents also apply to
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:12, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability
or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator
of the patents, as they have already been granted.
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:06:29AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
What's wrong with the conditional statement (unproven assertion:)
The LPPL-1.3 is DFSG-free, but only when applied to software which makes
the file-renaming requirement easy
Well, one of the properties of free software is that you
Richard Braakman writes:
Hmm, I thought of a perhaps more practical example that also illustrates
my desire for transitive closure. What if you take a piece of code from
an LPPL'ed work and use it in another project? This other project might
lack any facility for remappping filenames.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Requiring that the tarball for SniffenTeX be no smaller than the
tarball for LaTeX, since if I distribute a fork I must distribute a
pristine LaTeX *with* it, would be unacceptable. If I'm an
English-language bigot who wishes to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:50:07 +0200, Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:06:29AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
What's wrong with the conditional statement (unproven assertion:)
The LPPL-1.3 is DFSG-free, but only when applied to software which
makes
the file-renaming requirement easy
Well, one of the properties
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
characterisable as it can't work or I'd have no respect for someone
who uses such a licence.
I regret making that comment, and I apologize for it. begins digging
deeper I intended to
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Are all derived works from DFSG-free packages DFSG-free?
No. The BSD network stack is DFSG-free. But Microsoft's implementation of
it is not.
But that's due to them licensing their changes under another, non-free
license, not due
Package: libgnomevfs2-0
Version: 2.0.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid
[Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.]
pisces:~$ ldd /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so
[...]
libssl.so.0.9.6 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.6 (0x40249000)
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 = /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x40275000)
[...]
Linking anything
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
Well, one of the properties of free software is that you can change it
:)
I thought the primary benefit was to have unending discussions about license
issues... :)
That's another of the properties of free
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:58:01PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a pristine copy of LaTeX as well.
This is specifically allowed by DFSG #4. The Q Public License uses
Branden is asserting that DFSG's patch exception
Glenn Maynard writes:
If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains
free.
but the same would be true for the LPPL as proposed to be rewritten by me with
the help of Jeff and others.
I repeat the essential point is that requirement to be able to apply LPPL
would be
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:00:39PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
listing them, would be a nice try but hopeless as you would need to keep track
of i would guess more than 1000 individual works that end up in tetex texmf
trees. That would not be automatable and as a manual process it would be
reassign 154027 gnome-vfs2
merge 154027 153642
thanks
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:44, Joe Drew wrote:
[Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.]
As Junichi Uekawa pointed out to me, he had previously filed a bug on
gnome-vfs2, #153642, which also includes a (preliminary) gnutls patch.
--
Joe Drew
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to
be
LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known
to be
LaTeX as well as
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 12:32, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Comments? Branden, Walter, Mark, and Jeremy, I'm especially interested
in your opinions, since you three are the current objectors.
Hmm. Time to sign up for those remedial math classes, I think... :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:03, Richard Braakman wrote:
Frank Mittelbach pointed out that the LPPL itself is not transitive,
so the code from an LPPL'ed work can be placed under a license that
says do anything you want, but don't rename it back to Foo. I hadn't
thought of that, and I think it
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
direct, if generalized, answer.
A license must be tested against DFSG 4 when either of the following are
true:
A) the license places
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Correct. I want to distinguish here between the rights Debian needs to
have and the rights Debian intends to exercise.
This may be a useful distinction, in that it reminds license authors to
keep I hope and I want out of the license and stick to You must
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:58, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Now, a DFSG-free program only needs one DFSG-free version of all of its
dependencies to be in main (and not contrib), but this is getting messy.
If B depends on A, and either A or B can be modified in any way, but some
modifications to A may
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a
sorry pressed C-c C-c in the wrong window ... try again
Jeff Licquia writes:
sorry, but we are not concerned only with the core stuff. even though we
don't
distribute the rest. The whole set of files put on ctan and identical (on a
pristine LaTeX installation) is what makes LaTeX
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:36, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The rights we demand are usually for special cases.
I strongly disagree. The rights we demand are guaranteed to our users,
and they get to decide what's a special case and what's a burning need.
Right. I
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
To quote a recently seen example:
nautilus - libgnomevfs0
If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 and link it to OpenSSL, then you change the
license status of
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:34, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
To quote a recently seen example:
nautilus - libgnomevfs0
If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 and link it to
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The
23-Jul-02 18:46 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
The license already allows sub-works within LaTeX to have additional
modification requirements beyond the LPPL. If you thought that some of
the sub-authors would disagree with relaxing the file naming requirement
when changing the name of the work
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
also not violating LPPL but violating the spirit of it would be to add an
article.cls that just contained
\input{article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls}.
If such a simple-minded technique will not count in court as a
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:05:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It doesn't matter whether the modification is easy or hard. I think the
assertions of the Free Software Foundation and some of my fellow
Debian developers are misguided in this respect. The DFSG says nothing
about how
Hi David!
You wrote:
Plus, you're talking about other files that are most definitely part of
LaTeX that are generated here. It would be different if it required
that gcc be installed in /usr/bin, for example.
No, I'm making a suggestion that, if a file is distributed under the
LPPL,
Scripsit Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the derived work is licensed under the LPPL, but does not provide an
easy remapping facility, then the derived work is not DFSG-free.
In this case the easy remapping (or one of the easy remapping options)
is to simply provide a *freshly written* file
David Turner writes:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
hmmm, perhaps not, but Richard Stallman
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:31:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I think they have a legitimate concern about what we distribute versus
what users do. What a user does may affect his machine and maybe a few
others, but what Debian does can affect thousands of machines.
Consider that some of our
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[LPPL3]
If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
present) part of
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
present) part of
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Do you think that it is non-free for a license to require *distributors*
to always provide the option to use pristine source when running
something?
Definitely non-free. Distributors may be required to provide pristine
source and patches, but must be
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:24:13AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
remember LPPL is not the license for the LaTeX kernel it is a
license being applied these days to several hundreds of indepeneded
works (individually!).
Oops. Is the kernel under a different license than LPPL?
I suspect he
23-Jul-02 15:02 Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls tree of
files at once, we could, i think
live with the idea (it is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a
possible though not encouraged
solution (thereby actually violating the
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right? If so,
LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
require to change an argument of
Hi,
I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an Aladdin Free Public License. The
full text is available from
http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
which in short and non-legal terms comes down to
- you may develop free software with PDFlib, provided you make all of your
own source code
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:24:38PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an Aladdin Free Public License. The
full text is available from
http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
which in short and non-legal terms comes down to
- you may develop free
In fact, serious thought ought to be given to using HP's solution as an
example to others that have to deal with a similar problem. It sounds
like almost the perfect OpenSSL-GPL linking exception.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
[sorry for the broad CC]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at
Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:24:38PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an Aladdin Free Public License. The
full text is available from
http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
which in short and
91 matches
Mail list logo
