Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
No, it is not.
The dissident test is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
It originated in
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
documentation from main here some comments from the release team on
1. Wishlist: non-DFSG-free seems odd and invites the DFSG aren't DFDG
response. Maybe documentation which doesn't
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
saying that all along.
You were also saying that C is probably
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:29:33PM +0200, giskard wrote:
i need the support of debian-legal@ because i wanted to know if:
- libavcodec2
- libxvidcore4
- libmjpegtools
- libfaad2
FWIW, libavcodec has multiple copies in Debian (xine, vlc, avifile, ..),
libfaad is part of xine.
Diego
--
Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that
dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the
binary is distributed.
I have yet to see any arguments from the FSF apart from baseless
and totally lunatic claims regarding
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG. I hope the readers of this mailing list have more information
about this kind of a problem and how to address it with the authors of
the software and also with debian.
Current version can be found at
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:32:01AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
documentation from main here
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
5. Wishlist: use gfdl-1.2, cc-2.5, ... as applicable. We may yet get
improvements.
Hmm, I don't know if we win anything by doing this. Either the license
if free, then we can close the bug, or it is non-free, in this case we
don't
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG.
Agree.
Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to
make the kind of a
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG.
Agree.
I'm filing a grave bug
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you
have to
accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
you can depart with any of their assertions.
And where can I find more details
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how
to qualify an
act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the
parties intent
of the act's intended effects, in the
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander accept them all (including the dynamic linking
On 9/14/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]
Alexander Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you
admit
Alexander you can
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:47:26 +0200 Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Something like a BSD-style license should be fine but the lack of
copyleft might be disliked by the author.
My top recommendations:
Expat (a.k.a. MIT) http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
2-clause BSD
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
That may be true in the GNU Republic.
Exclusive distribution right is about copies (material objects),
not works.
On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
That may be true in the GNU Republic.
Exclusive
I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
Neither is the entire libparse subdir, or anything else by Frank Kardel.
I'm not actually sure it will build without these bits.
So I guess NTP should be removed from Debian. It's not
18 matches
Mail list logo
