Branden Robinson, on 2003-08-26, 15:16, you wrote:
> It's probably good enough for the Release Manager as-is...
Now what do you mean with that?
Joerg
--
Joerg "joergland" Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417
pgpmlS5F4fROB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi *,
what do you make of that? IRRToolSet is the Internet Routing Registry
Toolset from RIPE containing very useful tools for admins of autonomous
systems. I am pondering packaging it, so I took a look at its license
and found that each source file contains two copyright statements and
licenses.
Joe Moore, on 2003-08-22, 07:50, you wrote:
> You said:
> > I think the sky is green, and pigs can fly.
>
> See? You should have licensed your email message so that no one could
> modify your comments to "put words in your mouth".
I do see, yes. But that's why I sign each message ;-)
Joerg
--
MJ Ray, on 2003-08-22, 13:53, you wrote:
> I cannot tell what "that" refers to, sorry. My example was why your
> argument holds for programs too. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
Sorry for my english, "that" should have referred to "example", read
"the example was nothing else than an example ..."
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
> As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
> anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
> change your license?
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
sec
MJ Ray, on 2003-08-22, 13:10, you wrote:
> that section. Does that mean my program is free software too, in your
> opinion? After all, all your arguments seem to hold for it equally
> well and programs and documentation-on-disk are just different types
> of software.
software != documentation
Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-21, 19:15, you wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL
> meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly,
> you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the
> DFSG and does so.
The DFSG does _
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
> Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
> Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
> Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
> true.
I was asked for my opin
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a
Jakob Bohm, on 2003-08-02, 14:52, you wrote:
> Glad to help out
Matthew Palmer, on 2003-08-03, 10:06, you wrote:
> In short, I see nothing DFSG-non-free in the licence.
Thank you both for your views,
Joerg
--
Joerg "joergland" Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FB
Hi fellows,
I am going to package msession[0], a session data manager that can be
used for PHP. It has a dependency on a library called phoenix[1], from the
same author. msession is GPL and phoenix is LGPL. The problem lurks in
the README file of phoenix:
"This library is being made available to
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS, on 2003-04-17, 14:41, you wrote:
> It might undermine the DFSG if Debian were to recommend its own
> licences.
Sure, but I did not say "recommend a license" but having a license that
does not only fit the DFSG but reflects the DFSG and Debian's sense of
free software in gener
Hi fellows,
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list archives. Is this worth a discussion? Regarding the latest
13 matches
Mail list logo
