-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the package for the new upstream version of synopsis
(http://synopsis.fresco.org/) which I created was
rejected:
rejected, your debian/copyright misses information.
The manual has a different one than the rest.
And at least Manual.texi looks
Hi,
I'm trying to understand how to interpret DFSG clause 4, in particular
under circumstances where the name of a file also encodes its purpose or
usage or any other kind of API.
I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, and it seems to me
that one of the major obstacles of the old
Andreas Fester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An earlier version of the package is already in Debian
and it also contains the file Manual.texi with the same
copyright information, but the file was only in the
source package while the new version now contains a
-doc package which allows to install
On 7/10/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
Actually, the MIT license[1] covers documentation:
---
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
Actually, the MIT license[1] covers documentation:
---
Permission is hereby granted, free
Hi Mark,
As you recommended, I have removed the ilbc code from Twinkle.
So you don't have to strip out the code for Debian anymore.
It is still possible to use ilbc with Twinkle if you want,
but you'd have to install the ilbc library for that and build
Twinkle against that library. This way
I still haven't found a license from Adobe for the Times font, so I
will contact the upstream xfree86 maintainers and go from there. I'll
post a followup once I have more information.
-- Robinson Tryon
On 7/5/06, Robinson Tryon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jun 27, 2006,
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you fail, well, I fear there is currently no license for
documentation that has been approved by -legal.
More precisely, there is no license specifically designed to apply
only to documents, as opposed to other types of software, that has
been approved
8 matches
Mail list logo