Dear knowledge source,
As can be seen in #294559 I hope to become a debian developer. In the
same bug report one can see that the package I'd like to start with is
netbiff.
According to it's web page the license is:
"
License
All code contained in netbiff is released into the public domain.
"
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:12:32PM +0100, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> It have been claimed that PD is a vague definition and the way GNU
> defines freedom, PD is only almost free because future versions might
> not be free. But that only applies do derived works, right? My
> understanding is that on
It is not exactly what Debian needs (obtaining the right to distribute
RFCs) but may be a start?
--- Begin Message ---
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Extracting RFCs
Author(s) : S. Bradner
Filename
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
> [-- This text/plain attachment is not included, --]
> [-- and the indicate
> 3.2.1. Confusion over what constitutes the standard
>It would clearly be confusing if someone could take an IETF standard
>such as RFC 3270 (MPLS Support of Differentiated Services), change a
>few key words and republish it, maybe in a textbook, as the
>definitive standards for MP
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the "Debian
> Free Stuff Guidelines". It merely makes it clear that documentation is
> included in "software", at least as far as the SC is concerned.
I don'
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
> either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
> standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
Thank you for writing a rebuttal, Glenn. I agree wi
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The Mozilla team seems to be committed to supporting the
> Debian packagers in building both mozilla-firefox and
> iceweasel-browser packages from the same source base. Isn't this
> precaution enough?
We know the Mozilla Foundation licensing
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>> "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
>>> everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
>>> restricted by his exclusive legal rights."
>> This is sufficiently short,
On 11 Feb 2005 01:15:42 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider
> free *documentation* and the main difference with free
> software is "I don't believe that it is essential for
> people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles
> and books." http://gnu.ha
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:58:46AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the "Debian
> > Free Stuff Guidelines". It merely makes it clear that documentation is
Josh King wrote:
Hi,
I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid
answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using
the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working
name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide n
12 matches
Mail list logo
