Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:52:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
>> >Hello debian-legal,
>> >
>> >Suppose I remove all the non-invariant sections of a GFDL document that
>> >have some sections marked invariant.
>> >
>> >Are the invariant sections st
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> AFAIK the distribution of
> license texts is allowed in main, even if the license itself is
> non-free.
This would seem to be only common sense.
If I take it upon myself to educate the world about the evil and stupidity
of the EULA
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> > Package: cpp
> > Severity: serious
> > The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
> > cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
> this doesn't make sense. you ar
Andrew Suffield writes:
> Package: cpp
> Severity: serious
>
> The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
> cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
this doesn't make sense. you are not allowed to change a copyright,
even for software distributed in main
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:52:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Hello debian-legal,
> >
> >Suppose I remove all the non-invariant sections of a GFDL document that
> >have some sections marked invariant.
> >
> >Are the invariant sections still secondary?
>
> I don't know. More directly, say
5 matches
Mail list logo
