[Please cc-me, I'm not subscribed to the list]
Hi.
I have put ogle and a52 packages in incoming, and sice heard about
legal problems with ac-3 and a/52 code. Is this something to be
concerned with? Should the packages maybe be removed?
I alsa have a script that downloads and installs
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:47:33AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
If I take apache, add an extra line to it, compile it and call it
apache, and some legal entity calls it derivation, I'll be shitting
bricks.
You'd better get some load-bearing underwear. :)
I'm going to leave this alone though,
Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences?
http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
while the
[cc list trimmed]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:03:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
if they don't contain
Scripsit Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
while the second is not
AFAICT
Scripsit Zooko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- begin included header
// md2.cpp - modified by Wei Dai from Andrew M. Kuchling's md2.c
// The original code and all modifications are in the public domain.
Public domain is fine for our purposes. However, the question is
whether that statement is an
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences?
http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5
I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights,
while the second is not (it
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
and consistently reminded by certain nameless individuals (how's that for
irony :)
And yet, you keep
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
and consistently
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:56:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
For instance:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes?
11 matches
Mail list logo