On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:33:07AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote:
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
> > Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +0100, Helmar Gerloni wrote:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
> Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers.
>
> I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2023/01/msg5.html
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2023/01/msg00097.html
Roberto, Tobias, thanks for your answers.
I have removed MagicSFver2.sf2 from the package and added a note to
README.Debian.
The new package now depends on
>From my personal experience of 15+ years contacting with authors of thousands
of "free" sound fonts: they are usually composed of sounds taken from random
places, and nobody really knows who made them or what their license are. Many
of them take samples from other "free" sound fonts, and chain
: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs.
virtualbox-guest-additions-iso
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:01 +0100
From: Christian Kuka
To: team+debian-virtual...@tracker.debian.org
Hi all,
In our team we just came across the question which license apply to the
virtualbox debian packages
[CC me please]
Hi there,
Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
following license:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
- http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
...
1.1 “Compatible Licensee Implementation” means a Licensee
Implementation that (i)
Mathieu Malaterre ma...@debian.org wrote:
[CC me please]
Hi there,
Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
following license:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
- http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
Looking at
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 07:13:50PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
[CC me please]
Hi there,
Could someone please clarify why OpenJDK 7.0 went to main with the
following license:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
- http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OpenJDK-TCK_SE7_27Dec2011.pdf
As Walter
* Daniel Echeverry:
I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
debian/copyright file?
Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
2012/12/29 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
* Daniel Echeverry:
I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
debian/copyright file?
Can you just remove the file and use the system font instead?
* Daniel Echeverry:
2012/12/29 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
* Daniel Echeverry:
I am currently working on this bug [1], the package has a licensed font
with this text [2]. Can you tell me how I define this license in
debian/copyright file?
Can you just remove the file and use the
On 17/03/2012 01:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
That page contains more than one question.
If i can tell the author here's a known license
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
i can consider i answered him.
That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is
You may not release the Software under a more restrictive license
than this one.
trying
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
i can consider i answered him.
That's difficult since I'm not quite sure what he really wants. Is
What
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:42:59 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
Well that is a fun license.
I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have
copyright/patent laws applied to it.
IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright
law where copright law
If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
want to with the software. Its an eccentric license that is Debian
compliant, and wide open.
On 17/03/2012 16:14, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
If, on contact, his goal is just wide-openness delivered in an
eccentric license, then I would recommend the WTFPL v2 located at
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ which basically says you can do anything you
want to with the software. Its an eccentric
On 17/03/2012 11:14, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
timo.lindf...@iki.fi wrote:
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
If i can tell the author here's a known license that fits your needs,
i can consider i answered him.
That's difficult since
2012/3/17 Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org:
Hi,
could anyone help me resolve this license question :
https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/commit/0b5b6e9964ca
i'm not smart enough to grasp what the author wants in that case.
Just for the record, the license says:
Copyright 2011 Isaac Z. Schlueter
Well that is a fun license.
I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have
copyright/patent laws applied to it.
IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright
law where copright law disagrees.
It also constitutes license proliferation.
--
bye,
Bernhard Reiter asked:
The following license applies to one cardset included with
pysolfc-cardsets (currently waiting for review). It looks like MIT/X to
me, but as IANAL, I was wondering if this is DFSG compatible and thus
okay to include? (I'm currently not including it because I wasn't
Hi,
Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution. It is not even valid for non-free without an special permission.
My approach for this package was to package te game
Scott Howard showard...@gmail.com writes:
Hello - I'm packaging something new that has a custom license, and I'd
an official opinion as to which repo it can go it:
Thank you for your attention to this topic, and for quoting the license
text here for inspection.
Overall, the language is poor
Thanks Miry for the reply!
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote:
Have a look at this part: With the exception of content with an
individual readme file, all
content is copyright Platinum Arts LLC and permission is required for
distribution. It is not even valid
Le Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 01:23:26PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
Obnoxious advertising requirement: IMO this restriction makes the work
non-free for the same reasons the similar requirement in the original
BSD license makes a work non-free.
Hello everybody,
works licenced with advertisement
Karl Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a package
(ftp://ftp.linuxcanada.com/pub/Quasar/1.4.7/source/quasar-1.4.7_GPL.tgz)
that I want to bring in to Debian, but it has two licenses in the
base directory.
The presence of a file containing license terms is not enough to act
as a
Faheem Mitha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question about a software license. The software in question
is not packaged for Debian.
Can you tell us what the software is and where it can be found?
Is the following license a free software license (by the defn of the
DFSG)?
The license
(Charliej has asked a straightforward question about a package's
license and whether it can be in Debian. Accordingly, I'm crossposting
to debian-legal; please follow up on that list. Charliej, please
subscribe to debian-legal to follow the discussion.)
Charliej [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
(Please CC me, I am not on this list)
Dear Debian Legal,
Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or
not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images
released like this:
COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones
readme:
This
On Sunday 09 September 2007 10:22:55 Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Could you please comment on whether this license is DFSG compliant or
not? I am actually packaging JFTP, and it uses some small GIF images
released like this:
COPYRIGHT: All images and icons Copyright(C) 1998 Dean S. Jones
readme:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:44:20AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Looking at JFTP, it looks like this only applies to some of the icons, not
all of them. The easiest thing to do might be to ask the author to please
relicense the icons under a free software license.
Thanks for the tip.
Le lundi 25 juin 2007 à 20:17 +0200, Carlos Galisteo a écrit :
Upstream source is released under the CNRI Python License [2] but AFAIK,
the DFSG compliant 'Python License' is the PSF [3] one.
As you can read in the PSF license full text, there's a controversy about
the CNRI (1.6.1)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cord Beermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
It's the GNU *General*
Cord Beermann wrote:
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes
Hi.
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes
must be uploaded to
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Cord Beermann wrote:
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog.
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:32 +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the
Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
Does this mean you are the sole copyright holder? Or is this a work
derived from someone else's work? What is the license of that existing
work?
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
cannot remove them because you are not the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
granted by the GPL*. But there are already such
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:04:09 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
[...]
The copyright holder could make a new licence out of the GPL, as
permitted by the FSF, but they have not done so. I think they should
use the plain GPL, because
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Adding any restrictions to plain GPL results in an invalid licence
as in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html
I think you're wrong here ... (certainly if the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:52:05 +0100 (BST) Alan Baghumian wrote:
[...]
You can find the exact license here:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-fonts/packages/ttf-liberation/trunk/debian/copyright?op=filerev=0sc=0
Mmmmh, does the following exception constitute an additional
restriction with respect
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
Mmmmh, does the following exception constitute an additional
restriction with respect to the GNU GPL v2?
| (b) As a further exception, any distribution of the object code of the
| Software in a physical product must provide you the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because
it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional
restrictions).
What do other
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
Hence you cannot comply with the
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 16:01:25 Francesco Poli wrote:
You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
granted by the GPL*. But there are already such restrictions, and you
cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
Hence
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fine. So, as I understand, the only possible problem is documentation,
since the license doesn't explicitly give permission to modify it or
distribute modified versions. It's only speaking of 'the code'.
All the documentation
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
Right :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if
Hi,
I'm packaging a set of Glk user interface libraries [1], which are
distributed under a custom license, included below. In my limited
understanding this is both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, but I'd like
to be sure about this. The libraries are going to be linked against
GPL- and BSD-licensed
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
incorporate this code into your own
Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any
On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:49 -0500 Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
the not-on-legal part of the
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and
discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to
read debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged from
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism.
It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as
noise or interesting discussions, depending on your point of view,
mood, and temperature... but calling it masturbation is a bit rude,
Quoting Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
You must ensure that all recipients of the
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
it non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking
On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:58:41 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged.
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
Based on what has
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
There's disagreement over that.
Based on what has been stated and on
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I think a bug should be filed immediately...
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
not-on-legal part
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
issues.
Have you had a chance to outline this
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
The output of gcc is
not covered by the licence that covers gcc.
That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any
and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on
it.
There's no
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:46:09AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
The output of gcc is
not covered by the licence that covers gcc.
That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any
and all use of any
Hello all,
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly
appreciated:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
In
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source this project is would be greatly
appreciated:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading!
-Tom
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Jay Bonci wrote:
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
mention I see of that is at:
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
and
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
mention I see of that is at:
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
and
http://opencontent.org/openpub
http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business
use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to
talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then.
Otherwise, the next thing to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as a person who does not feel that the QPL
is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above.
For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should
probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections
to the QPL, I
Hi again,
Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky.
May I ask you for some advice?
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
* have a clear no-nonsense license
* to make the library free for all open source users
* to guarantee that it stays free and
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Scripsit JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I ask you for some advice?
Sure.
The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal
but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that
seems, to sort of, work.
We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes in
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not
re-packaged and then sold by some other companies.
If by free you mean available at no cost, then free software isn't
for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price.
One very
Michael Zehrer wrote:
is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be
changed/added?
[...]
Permission to use this material for evaluation, copy this material for
your own use, and distribute the copies via publically accessible
on-line
media, without fee, is hereby granted
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:49:53PM +0100, Michael Zehrer wrote:
Hi all,
is the following license ok with the DFSG? If not, what should be
changed/added?
Michael
---
/*
Copyright (c) 1994-2000 Yutaka Sato and
And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is
enough
for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is not copyrighted. The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by
Scripsit Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been
asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able
to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better
than I do, is this licence free
Hello. I am interested in packaging the OpenCard Framework for
use with the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (www.debian.org).
Debian contains only free software, as defined by the Debian Free
Software Guidelines (DFSG), available from
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
I
Hi Hussain,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote:
Hi,
I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another
program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me.
I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub
Scripsit Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) Source code for the entire package must be distributed with
any derived work incorporating ANY part of PRAG.
is a little vague though. Does he mean that I can not take a .c
file and place it in another work?
What he presumably means
Could you please comment on this, or point me to other locations
where I could ask?
You can find a copy of the original license at
http://www.copyleft.de/pub/author/fabian/debian/prag/Copyright
sounds like yet another BSD license (tm).
The wording on the first item:
1) Source code for
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
What do people think of the following licence? I think there are tons of
problems, and I'd like a laundry-list of them to bring to the author's
attention.
There's a few issues with this license that I
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called making a living
somewhere else.
The license only speaks about
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:06:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called making
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 07:06:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
If we disqualify breaking the law as a field of endeavor, this provision
still violates the DFSG. Remember, what's called breaking the law where I
live (selling marijuana, prostitution) might be called making
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote
1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of
the person committing the action.
[Some jurisdictions regulate the collection and processing
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
5. The documentation is completely and totally non-free
Nod. Do you think removing the documentation from the package constitutes
modifying it, and would violate the license?
Removing the documentation would violate this:
92 matches
Mail list logo
