[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be
salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a
version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the
OPL carefully enough to determine if this is
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:37:05 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
And, of course, the license options are non-free, but nobody uses
them anyway.
I wish this were true... :-(
I recall seeing those clearly non-free options used more than once (and
take into account that I haven't seen so many OPL'd
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 03:37 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, these are the problems with it:
Lemme see if I can condense these down. I had a hard time reading your response.
Add explicit permission to make and distribute modified versions.
Remove or soften requirements for
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:40:43 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages
soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open
Publication License (OPL):
Well, I was not, taking into account that even Debian website is (IIRC)
I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open Publication License (OPL):
http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html
I note that the recommended boilerplate used for the OPL is as follows:
5 matches
Mail list logo
