Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. I've fixed the incorrect entry in the wiki and moved the MPL to the list of DFSG-compatible licenses (including links to archived postings by an FTP master) Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony Towns wrote: The Project essentially told us our conclusion ??? the GFDL is not free ?= is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections.=20 So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be them? Well, several of the loudest squallers over-interpreting the DFSG aren't DDs, so this holds some truth. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libgsm: right to distribute
Simon Neininger wrote: Copyright 1992, 1993, 1994 by Jutta Degener and Carsten Bormann, Technische Universitaet Berlin Carsten is my thesis counsellor, I'll ask him for clarification. I have no reason to believe that distribution is not permitted, though. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
