Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My opinion is that if someone wants Debian to distribute the firmware,
treat it as software, and apply the DFSG to it; otherwise, treat it as
outside the Debian system in the respect that the driver should not be
considered to depend on the firmware. I think
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The social contract uses require, which is a stronger term than
policy's depend. The driver software requires the portion of the
hardware that can also be described as software.
I assume the relevant quote is: We will never make the system require
the use of
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Huh? If a driver requires a firmware blob be copied from a driver CD,
Please repeat after me: drivers do not require firmwares, hardware
devices require firmwares.
And the driver requires a functioning hardware device. Thus, the
loadable firmware
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that you must acknowledge that doesn't mean you need to mail Sun a
written statement bearing an acknowledgement, but I don't think that makes a
difference. Would a license you must acknowledge that Jesus is Lord be
free?
I would guess not, because it
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is an argument that the whole of Debian belongs in 'contrib' rahter
than 'main' because there is no entirely free (as in speech) machine on
which it can run.
I think there are free CPU designs around and you could probably
compile a free emulator to
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a particular
way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and cannot give
permission for all possible uses of Debian software.
We most certainly can and should.
We can't give permission for
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
we don't have a Free license, such as the source
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just put a This copyright license does not grant a trademark license
disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
right?
That's what I would have thought. Does anyone disagree?
(However, I would add something along the lines of
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A Free logo, like any other Free image or Free work in general, must be
usable for any purpose.
It is, provided you modify it sufficiently. You could use it to make
your own trademark, for example.
On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I acknowledge that all of those classes of law are quite different in
many ways. Nevertheless, the DFSG does not differentiate among methods
of restricting Freedom.
That's because they're guidelines, though you seem to want to apply
them legalistically
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use
is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going
to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything
approaching a free license.
As a comparison, the English
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
license for the logo without allowing it to become diluted, then that
does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
Does it
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
version of it?
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think that it's fine to have licenses in other languages; I just think
that there should always be an authoritative license in English, too.
I don't think that's acceptable as a general rule. The licence is
binding on the licensor, who should not have to be
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The license is binding on the licensee,
Not in the same way, assuming it really is a licence, rather than a
contract.
who should not have to be bound
by a text in a language that they don't understand properly.
(The only solution available to me, in that
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody
which permits me to grant a license like this to the initial
developer -- granting new licenses is something
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
the system calls and implements them in
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
Not so great.
but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
I'm not convinced that QPL 3
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But standard advice on network security is *not* to advertise specific
banners. I don't think much of that advice, but I sure do see a lot
of it. Is it free to make this kind of requirement of users of the
software, that they ignore good security
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure how to interpret this; I'm not familiar enough w/ SRP-Z. Is
this a different algorithm, such that the source would need to be
significantly modified (such that SRP-Z is essentially a separate thing,
convered by its own license; converting SRP-3
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Lastly, if there is a choice of venue clause, can Arthur force Tom to
appear in France, where he could be arrested for violating French
hate-speech laws?
I don't think you have to appear in person for a civil case.
However, it has just occurred to me
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In its current form, I think there'd be few people who would accept the
RPSL as DFSG-free. If you terminated patent grants rather than the
copyright license, I think there'd be a sizable proportion of developers
who would accept it as DFSG-free.
See also
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
modification that was made by adding material to L.
Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the L
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
The license must allow modifications and derived works.
...hmm?
Perhaps DFSG 3 is looking at it from the point
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the
rest can have any free licence,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
since a given software can either be a modification of the original software
(which can replace it) or link with the original or modified software (and
thus use it).
One last attempt:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
strongest yet:
(3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
sufficient to make the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
granted by section 3?
They do not, since they apply to two different
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant
unless INRIA have
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
| initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
| then you must supply one.
The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed,
but
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
permission that they gave you?
Because upstream used one of your modification in a private version of the
software, without including it in the QPLed version for example ?
Isn't that more a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
(1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
goes against tradition.
Could you define more precisely what is meant by cost of administration ? I
think i am going this way,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
make the software available to the general public.
Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.
According to 6b you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement
for
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
to use the software in question.
Of course, but
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
information an important one?
I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but:
- The information in question will be
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
otherwise. For that matter, do you see
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I
feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output
of a compiler might contain copyrightable
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm still
interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of the QPL
discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly important to
actually bring to the project; they keep coming up again in
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first reproach.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
-- not the parts in the library linked in, but
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free
in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I
think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental
freedoms.
Anyone (you) may use, copy,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance of
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived
works, and must allow them to be
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
Did you mean 9A(b)? Any requirement for sending
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
The dissident test does sound very silly the way it is described in
the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
the memorable but silly dissident example. A realistic example might
be a group of people
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe the situation in the Dissident test is that the laws of the
totalitarian government are irrelevant. The Dissident test triggers if,
when the dissident finally leaves the jurisdiction of the totalitarian
government, some copyright holder can say that
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you can make your
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Branden Robinson:
In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
work; see section 6.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
licensor to require
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
That's a bogus reason. A typical you must give the author 1000 $ /
month doesn't prohibit you from paying nothing; it just
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be allowed into main without
us trying to pretend that it's only there for
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers.
A
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
found.
My thinking is that we need
Benjamin Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyway... the program itself is GPL, no problems there. However, on the
same site, they have several zip files that are basically rom databases
produced by running the program on directories full of ROMs, allowing you to
match ROM images by their checksums.
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Textbook Example: in Scotland, if you advertise a reward for returning
your lost cellphone, you are contractually obligated to reward the
person returning the phone. If you refuse, they can take you to court
for this reward. (In this case, the phone is not
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, could someone explain how this sort of condition would work in
practice? Suppose I'm the licensee. The licensor would go to court in
Santa Clara County and say what, exactly? I haven't signed anything,
so how would the licensor convince the court
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the
clause
was ruled to be unenforcable).
This is circular. A court has to decide from the facts of the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What is the impact of the third
Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't really want to defend the MPL, but ...
| 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
| [...]
| (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is
| granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2)
|
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
derivative of Windows?
Yes.
There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually
confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the
case of GPL libraries.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
is no real bootstrapping provided
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
compile it with GHC.
GHC can be bootstrapped without GHC itself, there is a minimal C
implementation of the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by
Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable,
even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...)
Don't you mean protected by the Database Directive, which is not the
same thing as copyright: it has a much
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the case of a NDIS driver, the driver itself is without doubt NOT a
derived work on the linux kernel.
Yes, but the combination of the driver with the kernel is a derived
work of the kernel, and it's not a case of mere aggregation, which
the GPL permits.
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
They might do in some jurisdictions, but I would guess that in most
they don't. The public key is
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
that. The DFSG were originally designed for software; if they are to be
extended to apply to works that are mainly about expression rather than
function, you risk bumping up against the law.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine code
for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered form for
modification.
Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-free.
That pretty much precludes the linking of that code with the rest of
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+ - The person who makes any modifications must be identified. According
+ to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable restriction on
+ modification. (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a description of the Dissident
+ Test.)
Maybe I understand the word
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all.
Indeed. I might be wrong here, but I think that one of the ways the
Law Society in England prevents non-solicitors from taking work away
from qualified lawyers is by
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
This happened when they extended the duration of copyright in the EU
from 50 to 70 years. (To remember when this happened, it
Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Besides, isn't Re: the abbrev. for Reply? The letter is not a reply.
No, it's Latin, ablative singular of res (thing), which is also the
first element of res publica and part of several Latin expressions
used in English legal jargon.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm. Provide the LaTex code (scrambled) and place it under the GPL.
If it's deliberately scrambled so as to make modifications difficult,
then placing it under GPL will be pointless
As far as I can see it is not scrambled in order to hinder
modification;
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited
without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and
small groups for reference and research purposes is permitted, on
condition that acknowledgement of the
Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If Homer isn't copyright and trademark free, nothing is safe.
Homer is not trademark-free. Try googling for Odyssey is a registered
trademark.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Still the nice thing about using old, old names like the ones I proposed
is that you can be almost positive no one has a leg to stand on in any
claim to own the name.
An old name can still be a current trademark. Hermes is an old name
and a trademark ...
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nor do I. I mean, consider the fact that my personal email is
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and I use it quite extensively (just check the
list archives) - this is not exactly something used by someone big on
placating fundies.
Presumably fundies will know, or will be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You seem to have already noted this, but I should re-emphasize that
since the Tolkien novels are still under copyright, then legally the
names from them are just as much risky choices as names from Pratchett
are.
Does anyone seriously think that copyright
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly my point. What would the equivalent of dynamic linking be? A
book that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
Wasn't there a case with a book containing questions and
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
free (eg. similar in spirit) to my own software, so I'm not
comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting to avoid
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
;;;the T Project
Jacob Emcken [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But before it can be packaged it has to be legal :)
I have tried to read the license but im not sure if it is legal to
package. Well it won't fit into main... but perhapes contrib or non-free?
I'm not a Debian developer, but it looks to me that to distribute
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(Big long quote because a few days have passed:)
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in
general, your modifications
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
remove the CD, and resell it. See the first sale doctrine.
But the reseller would be distributing a modified GPLd work
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you feel that the GPL needs clarification for the term 'object code', add
a specific notice stating what forms you consider to be object code (not
source code) in your interpretation.
But make sure this clarification functions as an additional preamble
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
modification in future versions of the SE provided such
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright holder.
So, use a pseudonym. This is only a problem if you live in a country
where it is illegal to use a pseudonym and you are very law-abiding
dissident and cannot bring
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
part of the streaming media on the Internet).
If we don't want to include this support, this is not your
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past).
So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case?
It's not ignoring the DFSG; it's interpreting
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is why the GFDL does not require complete corresponding source
code for a published manual. It's easier to change the manual if you
have this, but no disaster if you don't: you just have to write your
own mark-up, which is pretty straightforward. The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
Well in that case you can rest assured that they will be removed from
Debian together with the documentation to which they are attached!
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
compliant?
No. I think it's much easier for Debian to make an
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts.
The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it makes thing less clear, in fact.
- If everything that is on a Debian CD is software, it may
means that any text that can be included (for instance the
Bible) is software for Debian.
- But it may also means that the
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But to avoid any delicate issue in the future, if I were you, if would
ask him to confirm with a gpg signed email the license change (just an
email is something easy to fake).
Getting him to sign the e-mail with his own key won't help much in the
case of him
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
