reopen 521448 !
retitle gammu: gnapplet.sis requires packages which are not in our archive
stop
Justification: Policy 2.2
This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
message, while gammu's source does contain source code for
gnapplet.sis, it requires "packages which are not in
Francesco Poli wrote:
> As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license
> versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim
> sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in
> the GNU LGPL v2.1...
I was looking at the December 2001 vers
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:36:02 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> EUPL v1.1 full text:
Thanks Miriam!
>
> European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1
>
> Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007
[...]
>5. Obligations of the Licensee
> The grant of the rights mention
* Anthony W. Youngman [090329 12:03]:
> >I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
> >programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
> >a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to
> >hard to change to call it free.
>
>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:43:14 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
> > > exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the
> > > LGPL-2.1... which i
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote in message
news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org...
4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license
with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor
do you have to identify the FLTK license in your
program or documentation as requ
Philipp Kern asked:
> was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already?
I found this answer at
http://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?query=eupl+draft
It appears to have a shed-load of problems, but the EUPL is trivially
upgradable to a number of good free software licences (section 5 and
appendix),
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:33:59 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...]
> > I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug
> > report should be filed against gammu.
> > What do others think?
>
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote:
> [...]
> > What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
> > exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the
> > LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1.
>
> Could you please elaborate
Steve Langasek wrote: [...]
> A recent (Dec 2008) addition with no grounding in the DFSG. If I see PDFs
> being rejected with this rationale when it's not a question of license
> compliance (PDFs distributed under the GPL certainly have to have source
> with them, but that's not a DFSG matter), I
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote:
> [...]
> > I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree.
> > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416
> > doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt.
> > Can i
2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault :
> I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1
> or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts,
> Acknowledgement or Dedication sections.
>
> How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it
> under the GFDL 1.2 an
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:02 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>,
> Bernhard R. Link writes
> >> - only that they output the same documentation.
> >
> >I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
> >progra
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:02:07 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If,
> however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ...
Please reconsider your claim after thinking about typesetting,
formatting, mathematical formulas, p
In message <20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>,
Bernhard R. Link writes
- only that they output the same documentation.
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
a loss for do
In message <20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter Palfrader
writes
I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my
choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can
redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't
have to redistr
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr>, Samuel
> Thibault writes
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1
> >or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts,
> >Acknowl
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> > A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the
> > preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a
> > program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions
> > of mumble2pdf are going to out
* Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> And this has all been discussed before.
Obviously not often enough for you.
> > Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter.
>
> A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred
> format for modification of *documentation
19 matches
Mail list logo
