Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Don Armstrong
It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; if you plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material you present should be expected so portions of the work can be utilized in main or otherwise

Re: sword-text-kjv - King James Version and Royal Letters Patent

2005-11-11 Thread MJ Ray
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html I don't see a conclusive answer in that discussion; only doubt and didn't find any proof that this restriction still holds. I'd prefer if we could find a specific abrogation of the restriction.

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why fight that? Even within Debian, it's become clear to me that, if we want DFSG-free things,

Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK [was: Bug#338077: ITP: sword-text-kvj -- King James Version with Strongs Numbers and Morphology]

2005-11-11 Thread Christofer C. Bell
On 11/8/05, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even illegal to distribute at all in GB,

Unsubscription Confirmation

2005-11-11 Thread Subscriber Services
Thank you for subscribing. You have now unsubscribed and no more messages will be sent. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)

2005-11-11 Thread Joe Smith
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation, since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'. All the documentation

Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK [was: Bug#338077: ITP: sword-text-kvj -- King James Version with Strongs Numbers and Morphology]

2005-11-11 Thread Andrew Donnellan
And your argument is flawed. God himself didn't directly author any part of the Bible at all. ;-) According to Christian doctrine, God *inspired* various people to write the *entire Bible*. According to Jewish doctrine, the same holds true for the Torah. The KJV of the Bible was

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about starving children, but I don't donate the

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why fight that? Even within

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal permission they actually need to do their job. if

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:46:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Of course, within Debian DFSG-freeness isn't mandatory or enforced: you can upload to non-free instead of main just by tweaking your control file. The response is predictable, but here it is anyway: non-free isn't within Debian;

legality of distributing logos

2005-11-11 Thread Josh Metzler
I am working on the packaging of the kdeadmin module of kde 3.5, and it contains a new application, knetworkconf. This application has backends for 15 different gnu/linux and bsd distributions, and it contains 20x20 pixel logos of each of them. By default, the built package includes all the

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:26:52 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: [If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.] *sigh* Does this

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about starving children,

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

2005-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why force people