Doctor Listing

2007-12-10 Thread Cross lawn
Special Package for this week Licensed Doctors in the USA 788,051 in total * 17,856 emails Doctors in many different specialties 16 different sortable fields American Pharmaceutical Company Listing 47,000 personal emails and names of decision makers American Hospital Database Complete co

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:34:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The whole reason the licensing of the Debian logos is being changed > is because the previous licensing made them unsuitable for use > within the main archive. This is generally acknowledged as a bug, > but shipping the official Debi

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:28:55PM +, John Halton wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I > > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other > > people seem to agree with me tha

Debian logos and their licenses [was: Re: About Logo License]

2007-12-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:28:55 + John Halton wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I > > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other > > people seem to agree with me that it s

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:25:41 +0100 Sam Hocevar wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I am Cc:ing the DPL, because I would love to hear whether there is > > any progress on the Debian Logo licensing issue. > > I am not aware of any recent development on this front: what's the

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other > people seem to agree with me that it should be changed. I'm aware that the licensing position regard

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread Sam Hocevar
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: > I am Cc:ing the DPL, because I would love to hear whether there is any > progress on the Debian Logo licensing issue. > I am not aware of any recent development on this front: what's the > current plan? > Sam, this debian-legal thread starts here: > ht

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:16:48 + John Halton wrote: > On 10/12/2007, Alessandro De Zorzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PHAMM USE LOGO LICENSE > > > > This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to > > the Phamm project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. > > >

Re: About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread John Halton
On 10/12/2007, Alessandro De Zorzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PHAMM USE LOGO LICENSE > > This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Phamm > project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. > > Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to > http:

About Logo License

2007-12-10 Thread Alessandro De Zorzi
Hello there, I am not subscriber of this list, please reply to me in CC, thanks in advance! ftpmaster reject my new package Phamm www.phamm.org due Image license restriction: [...Hi Maintainer, rejected, this wont go into main, the image license forbids that. You also, even if you want to go to