Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so

Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates debhelper contained in the past.

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: Mark Brown: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86info: x86info.1.gz This isn't Debian-specific since I contributed it back upstream. I've contacted upstream about relicensing it under the GPL like the rest of the package

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

* Bernhard R. Link: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the GFDL: H. Include an unaltered

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

* Francesco Poli: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the GFDL: H.

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:53:25 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: * Francesco Poli: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

Bernhard R. Link wrote: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:20:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Bernhard R. Link wrote: Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

#include hallo.h * Bernhard R. Link [Sun, Jan 09 2005, 02:26:51PM]: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] nvtv: nvtvd.8.gz Oh, sorry, was not a deliberate act. (Must have been from the time when dh_make sugested this crappy license per default). Maintainer: Please relicense under

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:53:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the GFDL: H.