a52, css and ogle advice.

2001-12-07 Thread Mikael Hedin
[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

Re: apache non-free?

2001-12-07 Thread Branden Robinson
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,

LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Colin Watson
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

Re: LDP in main?

2001-12-07 Thread Colin Watson
[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

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Henning Makholm
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

Re: Crypto++ again

2001-12-07 Thread Henning Makholm
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

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread John Galt
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

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
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

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
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

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread John Galt
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

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

2001-12-07 Thread Anthony Towns
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?