Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > >When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but > >it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow > >in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply > >because we think it would be nice t

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply because we think it wo

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

Olive wrote: > [...] But I still think we > must not exagerate. By modifying some files; like logos, the result > could really abuse people since the very puporse of trademarks are just > to properly identify people. I acknowledge that, but they should be controlled by trademark licences. Copy

Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries

On 2/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [... bloby Eben's manifestations of blatant copyright misuse*** ...] > Thanks, that makes it clearer. Bitteschoen, bittesehr. Now be a good GNItian and go . regards, alexander. ***) http://www.xfree86.org/pipe

★☆★必見です★☆★完全自動収 入★☆★

◆楽してお金を稼ぎたい方にお勧めです！！ ◆まずはご覧ください！！ ◆喜んでいただけると思います！！ http://www.hamq.jp/i.cfm?i=yunimoni2 不要の方は削除して下さい。 でも、一度のぞいてからにして下さい！！ 見る価値はありますよ！！ http://www.hamq.jp/i.cfm?i=yunimoni2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libgsm: right to distribute

On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:19:28PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Simon Neininger wrote: > > > Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann, > > > Technische Universitaet Berlin > > > > Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I

MIT License are DFSG complicant ?

Hi,, I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed. Debian suports this license ? - The MIT License Copyright (c) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the S

Re: MIT License are DFSG complicant ?

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0200, José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros wrote: > Hi,, > > I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed. > Debian suports this license ? This is the typical "liberal" license recommended by d-l. (Whereas the typical "copyleft" license is some incarn

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > >On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > >>There is no rule which say that "every bits of a file can be > >>modified"; but there are law which says that you must be able to > >>use your freedom. > > > >I'm not sure what else you can reasonably

Re: Anton's amendment

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:10:07 +0200, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > #!/usr/bin/make -f > # debian/rules file - for debian/keyring > # Based on sample debian/rules file - for GNU Hello (1.3). > # Copyright 1994,1995 by Ian Jackson. > # Copyright 1998-2003 James Troup > # I hereby give you

Re: Squiz.net Open Source License - is it free?

Totally non-free. The notice requirement is enough. There are other requirements which are dangerously insane too, such as the requirement to assign copyright and patent rights in derivative works to them. (!) In the US, this means that it requires you to mail a paper document to them, which

Re: Squiz.net Open Source License - is it free?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And they say they support "open source". Just looking at the fact that > they require notification of modification is non-free, then the poorly > written clauses, etc. > > Software under this license and the 'open source' banner will now be > implemented by businesses an

Affero General Public License

There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the Affero General Public License (AGPL). http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for Debian. http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/02/msg00020.html I couldn't determin

Re: Affero General Public License

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote: > There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the > Affero General Public License (AGPL). > http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html > I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for > Debian. No, it is

Re: Affero General Public License

> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote: > > There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the > > Affero General Public License (AGPL). > > > http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html > > > I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for > > De

Re: Affero General Public License

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have > mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type > clause. The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A non- free restr

Re: Affero General Public License

Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote: >>>There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the >>>Affero General Public License (AGPL). >> >>>http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html >> >>>I thought I should just check with you guys if the lic

Re: Affero General Public License

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote: > > > There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the > > > Affero General Public License (AGPL). > > > http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html > > > I

Re: Affero General Public License

* Steve Langasek: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote: >> There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the >> Affero General Public License (AGPL). > >> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html > >> I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is O