I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
not DFSG free as I understand it due to the DEC Word list license
(beginning on line 134).
The
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
not DFSG free as I understand it due to the DEC Word
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
not DFSG
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically said the
word list meets FSF definition of Free (which should in term meet Debian
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically said the
word list meets FSF definition of
Please cc me as I'm not on this list...
As the ftpmasters have finally gotten around to looking at the latest
jdk1.1 packages (they sat in queue/new for over six months), the
subject of java licensing has again arisen. Attached is the amended
debian/copyright file I am proposing to put into the
Please see the latest message from RMS, to myself and the Debian-BSD list.
(Ref: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED], or
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2002/debian-bsd-200210/msg00044.html)
It appears to be RMS's opinion that this falls under a section of the
I assume this is the part from which you expect distributability:
Blackdown Java-Linux Team Supplemental Terms
The Blackdown Java Linux team (Blackdown), as a Sun JDK 1.1 source
code licencess, asserts it's right to amend the terms of the Binary
Code License Agreement (collectively the
Richard == Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard First, I find this a curious phrasing. asserts it's
Richard right? On what basis? Should we take this assertion at
Richard face value? If this is a right that Sun granted, it
Richard would be nice to say so
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 02:40:07AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
I assume this is the part from which you expect distributability:
Blackdown Java-Linux Team Supplemental Terms
The Blackdown Java Linux team (Blackdown), as a Sun JDK 1.1 source
code licencess, asserts it's right to amend
12 matches
Mail list logo
