Hello,
I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also
couldn't find any written offer for them in my mail package. Should I
consider this an
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also
couldn't find
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:51:07PM +0100, Jan Lübbe wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
GPL-licensed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matter
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
I am not a lawyer nor a devlepper of Debian, I just give my humble
(
Please mail followups to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Quoting Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 08:51:26PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
--
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
(
Please mail followups to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Quoting Lionel Elie Mamane
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even
illegal to distribute at all in GB, unless the Crown gives a blanket
license for electronic
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
This makes the KJV of the bible non-free in GB and probably even
illegal to distribute at all in GB, unless the Crown gives a blanket
license for electronic distribution. Does it?
...
Please investigate this before uploading
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
Please investigate this before uploading to Debian.
Or alternatively, depend on the bible-kjv-text package, which already
is in main.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
[1] http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/
Ah. Zarf. Quite a fascinating fellow. :)
Right :)
The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
What does
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
Please investigate this before uploading to Debian.
Or alternatively, depend on the bible-kjv-text package, which already
is in main.
I'd rather we had a good investigation on this, that would be valid
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:38:50PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:23:28PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:03:45PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
According to Christian belief, the bible is the word of God.
According to Nietzsche (in 1882), God is dead. So the author of
the bible is dead since at least 120
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:52:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
Please investigate this before uploading to Debian.
Or alternatively, depend on the bible-kjv-text package, which already
is in main.
The text included in bible-kjv-text is not SWORD-compatible. I
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:39:39PM +0100, Olive wrote:
That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in
the *same* place.
Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the
opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
place but with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember I have the
opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability
and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they
are pretty standard and there are
Hi all,
I am package libfacets-ruby[1] for the Debian/Ruby Extras maintainers
team. This package bundles of hundreds of small libraries useful as an
extra for Ruby's standard library. The authors have all agreed to the
bundling, however not everything is under the Ruby license yet, but they
are
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
Hi all,
I am package libfacets-ruby[1] for the Debian/Ruby Extras maintainers
team. This package bundles of hundreds of small libraries useful as an
extra for Ruby's standard library. The authors have all agreed to the
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:03:56AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:56:31PM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember I have the
opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability
and such) or under some different protocols
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software
interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are
not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source code
is properly distributed. You should make sure the person has
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:13:08AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software
interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are
not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:03 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
(Just IMHO, but I think reasonable people would agree.)
Isn't that the definition of your opinion?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Does the crown copyright on the KJV affect other Commonwealth
countries e.g. Australia? Down here we have a Crown copyright law and
that covers *some* government material, including electoral
information, the NSW Higher School Certificate and a lot of other
things. Would British Crown Copyright
28 matches
Mail list logo
