Re: Question on wxWindows packages

2003-05-03 Thread Adam Warner
Hi Roberto Sanchez, I came across the following while reading the wxWindows documentation (from the wxwin2.4-doc package): We also acknowledge the author of XFIG, the excellent Unix drawing tool, from the source of which we have borrowed some spline drawing code. His copyright is included

Re: Question on wxWindows packages

2003-05-03 Thread Roberto Sanchez
--- Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Hi Roberto Sanchez, Roberto, this is a standard permissive MIT/BSD-style licence that has no advertising clause and is GPL compatible. The ambiguity in the without fee section is frequently misinterpreted (it means you can do everything listed

Licensing of shareware quake data

2003-05-03 Thread Alan Woodland
Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment, and I noticed the follwing clause in the license which I think might mean Im permitted to include the whole compressed zip file inside a package instead of having to get the user to download it in and postinst script (like the nvidia

Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL

2003-05-03 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [This is starting to shift away from the GFDL so I modified the subject. Georg, I can suppress you from the Cc: if you wish so.] On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:25:43PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 29 lines which said: Naturally, I'm

Re: Licensing of shareware quake data

2003-05-03 Thread Walter Landry
Alan Woodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment, and I noticed the follwing clause in the license which I think might mean Im permitted to include the whole compressed zip file inside a package instead of having to get the user to download

Re: Licensing of shareware quake data

2003-05-03 Thread Joey Hess
Alan Woodland wrote: Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment Quake 1 was in debian before. I forget why we dropped it, but I think it had little to do with licensing and a lot to do with the maintainer at the time. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this license was discussed a/ long

Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts

2003-05-03 Thread Walter Landry
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: Is that a problem?

Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts

2003-05-03 Thread Michael D. Crawford
It can be misleading or wrong, and you'll never be able to take it out. But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if they are truthful? In my case my only desire is to guarantee

Re: Licensing of shareware quake data

2003-05-03 Thread Walter Landry
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Woodland wrote: Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment Quake 1 was in debian before. I forget why we dropped it, but I think it had little to do with licensing and a lot to do with the maintainer at the time. Anyway, I'm pretty

Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts

2003-05-03 Thread Sam Hartman
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman Glenn wrote: How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of those free.