Re: Problem with mush's license

Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified > sources. If nothing is said about it, then it is not allowed. I agree with Don Armstrong that the binary packages must be removed from the archive. -- Henning Makholm

Re: DRAFT summary of the CC-by, feedback requested

@ 04/04/2004 03:57 : wrote Nathanael Nerode : Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these changes > It is likely that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a > Free "quite possible"? I'm not sure about "likely". > license in the sense of the DFSG. However, since

Bug#242281: Problem with mush's license

Package: mush Severity: serious Version: 7.2.5unoff2-20 On Mon, 05 Apr 2004, Göran Weinholt wrote: > I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe > that we are currently violating it: > > Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. > All Rights

Re: Problem with mush's license

Hi, my interpretation is that we avoid a problem: We only distribute the orginal sources (alongside a .diff.gz, but that's ok). Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified sources. Maybe "Modification of the source for personal use is permitted." can be a problem, since the bina

Problem with mush's license

Hi, I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe that we are currently violating it: Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain. Redistribution of the unmodified source code is

Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software

@ 03/04/2004 08:40 : wrote J.D. Hood : (If we are distributing it then it isn't firmware. I'll call it 'peripheral software' until someone suggests a better term.) There are differing views on two different questions: Q1: Is binary peripheral software DFSG-free or not? Q2: What do we do about