On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 07:38:10 +0100 Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:45:11PM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
[...]
> > The question, which keeps being raised in part
> > because I don't think it's gotten a good answer, is what the basis is for
> > treating copyright and licensing bugs
Andreas Tille writes:
...
> May be some intermediate step would be to not hide packages in NEW queue
> but exposing them as an apt source. If I'm correct this is not the case
> since it had certain legal consequences for the project if code with
> certain non-free licenses would be downloadable
Am Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:45:11PM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > I just don't think the solution is to ignore copyright or licensing
> > statements.
>
> That's not the goal. The question, which keeps being raised in part
> because I don't think it's gotten a good
I believe my personal, private data( photos, videoing, watching, recording
audio, etc.) Has been tampered with, and placed on the Debian FTP site,
without my permission or knowledge. Your copyright permission notice states
that without permission from me it becomes a copyright, patent issue. I
to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HFfujzQyqn956h_TeYVve0DTdB94+HmoGBR+_bUjW=a...@mail.gmail.com
http://slowfurthersamq9.webs.com?Zbrpm13n
--
Regards,
Umarzuki Mochlis
http://debmal.my
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org
]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:?
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ:234046116
MSN IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if there is any patent (held by the Initial Developer or a
Contributor) that covers the code, it makes it non-free, as then
modification is not permitted.
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
--
Lionel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
2005 (abstract), 15 January 2006 (full paper)
- ABTRACT-
India is a country of 1050 Million population and largest English specking
student in world. In future Technical man power shall required web based
knowledge of engg and scientific subject like
else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
license.
In opened software, We are all developers.
I think he meant to say the copyright holder. In free software, we are
not all the copyright holder.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
holder.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
they
still choose either?
Does this change if the way you distributed the work is not compatible
with the other license?
Does this change if you modified the work?
--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, the
requirements are extremely loose; something to the effect of: You can
do whatever you want, in any one of 3 different ways
d/l == download?
--
Clear skies,
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is supposed to be
doing: preserving the freedom to modify. This would be curtailed if to
modify a book you first had to scan and OCR it.
--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the terms of the GPL license.
You get to choose. Its like the gpl version 2 or later clause: at
your option.
--
Clear skies,
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
could have been considered not
-holder who licenses their contribution under
the
(L)GPL may, and that's politically bad for all of us.
More than you probobally wanted to know on the subject, but hope it clears up
all the confusion on the issue. :-)
--
Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution,
Conformity its Starvation.
Be Radical
politically bad for all of us.
More than you probobally wanted to know on the subject, but hope it clears up
all the confusion on the issue. :-)
--
Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution,
Conformity its Starvation.
Be Radical. Be New. Be Different.
Feed Evolution with Everything You
, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with Everything You Are.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
distributed under one of the licenses
the copyright holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at
least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it. You'd
have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the
opposite of your claim.
It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject
holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at
least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it. You'd
have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the
opposite of your claim.
It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject.
Feel free
-friendly license of
your choice.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
supposed to apply to
software, not to documents.
Any collection of bits is
you very much!
Emmanuel Colbus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkNbo0EACgkQOgZ5N97kHkcT4wCgjXWKDTv0jziHvnZ0+aqXX8Ne
xHcAnjzDXhFQNfqE7e0GbYAWVYCFLuS3
=VcZ4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
邮 箱： [EMAIL PROTECTED]
联 系 人： 陈哲
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Here is the website you wanted to visit
We carry only the highest quality Replica Watches
here are a few of your selections
Cosmograph SilverDaytona-BlackFace
Day-Date Silverband-SilverfaceDiamondNumbers
Datejust Silver/GoldBand-GoldFaceDiamondNumbers
Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: But
as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as proscribed
by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7). If you distribute to subsidiaries,
you may not stop them distributing to the world. But the GPL
explicitly recognises
Jim Bounce
President
Millionaire Corporation
702-948-8522 office
702-948-8523 fax
Finally, a mo.rtgage l o an that works on your
terms. We can lower your
monthly payments by up to 45% vs. traditional loa ns.
There is no co.st or obliga.tion, so app.ly now.
Get a decision in seconds!
rem ve www.vsebudetzaebis.biz
mgmdg vhislleqn byefvdec yhifnjx jxuzl nnqnybu fbxeesao
Thu, 13 May 2004 09:03:20 -0500
The First Gove.rnment Mo'rtgage Program. Under a new bil1,
we have aspecial budget to help you and
your family. A lot of privileges available.
0nly 200 spots 0pen left
App1y here
cdxrudy dhyxbe- xgzagfh. mtkrwdyo qyluvqa akxdqisl sybpsbonv zsnvkreza msixlfug
Hello i was wondering my brother got me a (visual boy advance) game emulator and a couple of yugi oh games but what i was wondering was is there any free gaming zones where i might be able to download as well as play any free games for the vba if so i would appriciate a list or even just one site
Hey there, how are you. I was seraching the
web when I came across you guys. I have a question if it isn't to much
trouble. I am starting a t-shirt company. An original design t-shirt
company(with name) which I am about to start selling. Do I need to
copywrite/license the name of my shirt
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
to make software free. We
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no
The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
years before Debian was started,
This is at least much of a nasty cheap shot as what I said. And
you've done it before.
It is not a shot at all. I was defending the FSF from an
accusation, not attacking Debian.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use. I will use any license.
I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
As I explained, this desire is usually impossible
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
nasty. I could make
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
By saying everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders. But hey!
We don't
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.
Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use. I will use any license.
I
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
ask why they should be the same, since they
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects
RMS wote:
For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use software
in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
The main
RMS wrote:
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue? As a GNU Project
contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing
quite a few other GNU
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System,
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
See
Steve Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay
Some people feel the same about software in general. It is
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay
Some people feel
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
all to have a complete free operating system.
If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
We consider even trivial software such as Hello world to be worthy of
Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
It is difficult
to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a
case-by-case review.
I have never found it
On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002
Interesting. Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG? A
casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of
vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the
quarter
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Steve Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
The Social Contract is about producing the Debian system and other
works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating
System is just part of that work.
I see
On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel
that you need to the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
Yes... and thus both program and documentation.
It is difficult
to deal with such
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
copy along with each Opaque copy, could indeed be read differently
than the GPL. I
On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
under section 3, do you still hold that position?
GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for
Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a
computer* are software.
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.
I do not try to tell the
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
under section 3, do you still hold that position?
GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example,
distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
medium.
If you
of Computing has much more to say on
the subject and while it is not common usage it does allow that
documentation (both paper and electronic) is also software.
While you may not use the term software in this way the DFSG is
_not_ breaking the rules of English by using the wider meaning.
Steve
[1
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
in the
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm
Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. Debian will remain 100% free software. That's the first line of the
Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free
*software*.
That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the source for a LyX document is not
transparent.
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally
not the case, I will stop
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'. That's what I'd like
Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
I have said nothing of the kind.
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only
On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is
forward-looking. It
is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a
DFSG-free
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new
piece
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
I have said nothing of the kind. The Debian developers decide what
Debian does, and
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
way that single functions of Lisp are.
The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two
I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.
You shouldn't have believed I actually wrote that, because he
misunderstood what I wrote. He omitted a crucial part of the
argument, so that what remained was absurd; then he went on at length
pointing out just how absurd it
On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
I am not interested in beating a dead horse.
You have been for at least a whole week. Please stop that.
Thanks.
Mike
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
crucial.
But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license
for his program or
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen
wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source
code as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian,
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the source for a LyX document is not
transparent.
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
