On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:25:07PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:35:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence > > dedication to my dog? To be more realistic, how about the statement > > "Printed 2002 by FooBar Inc". It seems that allowing aggregate > > for-profit distribution is the same as allowing for-profit > > distribution of the original. It seems to be a nonsense restriction, > > and makes me think that the O'Reilly people haven't quite thought > > through the implications. > > IANAL! > > If the case will occur O'Reilly can figth an holy war against who made > the redistribution and try to demostrate what is an aggregate > distribution and waht is not! > > [ BTW the same "nonsense restriction" is reported in the DFSG, so > probably also we "haven't quite thought through the implications."? ] > > Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems. > > I just want to know if the reported requirements imposed by O'Reilly are > free enough to satisfy DFSG or not. > > BTW, since now I have seen no progress talking on this list to learn > what I'm looking for. Does exists an "official" authority that can say > if the reported requirement fall in the DFSG-free category? If such an > authority does not exists I will put the book in non-free section. > > Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long > long legal disquisition.
Stefano, ... Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of the peoples you will have to convince and who has the final saying. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
