On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 10:59:08PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > In the meantime I've found something about the copyrighted files from sun.
> > Actually these files are part of the official j2sdk! The contens of
> > win/include seems to be just a copy of my /usr/lib/j2sdk1.5-sun/include.
> > Bu
On 8/7/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last I checked you can't distribute parts of Sun's java anyway, only
> the *precise* installer files provided by Sun.
You're quite right, thanks for the correction. Just to clarify, for
anyone else who might be reading: the agreement[1] req
Hi Andrew and Mentors,
Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 8/6/05, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Fine, for me that's a good start. I'd like to package tvbrowser as
>> non-free at the first run and in the meantime try to convince upstream to
>> substitute this non-free-images with free
On 06 Aug 2005 16:48:38 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be
> > Cc:ed on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
> > Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a
On 8/6/05, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine, for me that's a good start. I'd like to package tvbrowser as non-free
> at the first run and in the meantime try to convince upstream to substitute
> this non-free-images with free ones in the next version. If they don't want
> to do so
Hi Andrew and Mentors,
Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 8/6/05, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 2) The gifs are free!
>
> Unfortunately not. :-( Try actually downloading the graphics from that
> site using the link provided, and you're forced to accept the
> following license agreemen
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> >So even if you managed to build it entirely with free tools at some
> >later date, this issue alone would relegate it to contrib until
> >suitably free data is available - or at lea
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:29:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> >Version 2.5 licenses feature *some* little improvements, but they do not
> >solve, AFAICT, all the issues that were found out in 2.0 ones.
> >
> However, the problem is well in hand. Debian is working w
On 8/6/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > It's controversial to say that RMS is occasionally reported to behave
> > eccentrically? And that being a conference speaker doesn't
> > necessarily stop him?
>
> No. But
On 8/6/05, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) The gifs are free!
Unfortunately not. :-( Try actually downloading the graphics from that
site using the link provided, and you're forced to accept the
following license agreement:
---
SUN IS WILLING TO MAKE THE ACCOMPANYING SOFTWARE GRA
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> >So even if you managed to build it entirely with free tools at some
> >later date, this issue alone would relegate it to contrib until
> >suitably free data is available - or at lea
On Saturday 06 August 2005 03:31 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
> A non-free license would not allow contents from the wiki to be copied
> into distribution that they hope for Debian to distribute with their
> software.
You're absolutely right, I withdraw my question.
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - Univ
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be Cc:ed
> on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
> Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a useful
> reminder for users of MUAs that do not auto
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I think that sounds lovely in theory... however, I really have no sense of
> how the ftpmasters synthesis the debates that go on here.
I don't think many do. I watch the effects and try to work out
what's happening. Sometimes it's good, sometimes ba
Andrew Saunders wrote:
[...]
> But having had a quick peek inside the orig.tar.gz, it looks like
> there's stuff in there that renders it completely undistributable,
> even from non-free. Everything under win/include/ contains:
>
> * Copyright 1997-1999 by Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
> * 901 San An
Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shared Source License for IronPython
>
> This license governs use of the accompanying software ("Software"), and your
> use of the Software constitutes acceptance of this license.
This licence governs use not copying?
> You may use the Software for any
On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Saunders wrote:
So even if you managed to build it entirely with free tools at some
later date, this issue alone would relegate it to contrib until
suitably free data is available - or at least, that's been the current
practice for e.g. emulators such as zsnes w
On 8/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read, and am enlightened! To repeatedly disclaim authority, either
> as a representative of the community or as a subject matter expert, is
> to self-select as an authority! To acknowledge error, in response to
> concrete evidence broug
On 8/5/05, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I package the client -- I did not even note, that upstream also provides a
> server, but as far as I (now) understand, the server is a tool to provide
> the data, so users of tvbrowser can use them. If this is correct, I provide
> only the se
IronPython was ITP'd last year (http://bugs.debian.org/262161). At the
time, IronPython 0.6 was released under CPL, Common Public License.
However, later versions (including IronPython 0.9 released 2005-08-02,
see http://workspaces.gotdotnet.com/ironpython) are licensed under
"Shared Source Licens
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> > > sizable donations to his pr
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Elektrostore
>>swirl is independently created starting from a straight brush stroke.
> Now, Debian really ought to be complaining about this.
There was an attempt to ma
Scripsit Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I understand it, Debian's responsibility is to ensure that
> everything (software, documentation, etc) distributed by Debian is
> done under a DFSG license... but is it Debian's intent to ensure
> that all "stuff" produced by said DFSG licensed softw
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 01:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/6/05, Henning Sprang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's in fact an interesting question if there is somebody alive and
> > reading mail in debian-legal. Or do we need to prove that fai is a
> > debian package? - dpkg/apt-cache sho
On 8/6/05, Henning Sprang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's in fact an interesting question if there is somebody alive and
> reading mail in debian-legal. Or do we need to prove that fai is a
> debian package? - dpkg/apt-cache should do that better than us. Or is it
> a subscribed-only list that do
On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> > sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
> > engagements, then perhaps con
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 22:48 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi debian-legal, hi fai :-)
>
> On Friday 05 August 2005 17:29, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > | Under the following conditions:
> > | by
> > | Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
> > | author or licensor.
> >
On 8/5/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> >a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
> >for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
> >swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
> >law
This mail landed on the wrong list, and might even be interesting fo the
people on debian-legal (in case there is anybody alive and reading mail
- does anybody? - can we only post to debian-legal if )
Forwarded Message
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
29 matches
Mail list logo
