Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-11 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? > > > > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the > > terms of the licenc

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-11 Thread Nick Phillips
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? > > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the > terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need > to now (eg dist

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-11 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: > > > > > The fact that we have conveniently > > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-11 Thread Nick Phillips
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: > > > The fact that we have conveniently > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far > > does not make it go away. > > It is my understanding th

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: > The fact that we have conveniently > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far > does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ becaus

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Nick Phillips
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:53:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named > >> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by > >> reference. > > > > I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL: > > > >

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Bernhard R. Link [Sun, Jan 09 2005, 02:26:51PM]: > Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > nvtv: nvtvd.8.gz Oh, sorry, was not a deliberate act. (Must have been from the time when dh_make sugested this crappy license per default). Maintainer: Please relicense under the

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:20:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look > > redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not > > include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Joey Hess
Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look > redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not > include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially > Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates d

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:53:25 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Francesco Poli: > > > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the > >> named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by > >> refer

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Florian Weimer
* Francesco Poli: > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named >> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by >> reference. > > I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL: > >

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named > section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by > reference. I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL: H. Include an unalt

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Florian Weimer
* Bernhard R. Link: > Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look > redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not > include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named section i

Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Mark Brown
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Mark Brown: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > x86info: x86info.1.gz This isn't Debian-specific since I contributed it back upstream. I've contacted upstream about relicensing it under the GPL like the rest of the package

Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included

2005-01-09 Thread Bernhard R. Link
Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates debhelper contained in the past.