On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Ben Finney wrote:
It occurs to me that the GPL itself violates section 3 of the DFSG,
it cannot be freely modified. (See:
A useful summary of the position of debian-legal on this point is here:
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00290.html
That
On 06/01/2006 01:11:45 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Ben Finney wrote:
It occurs to me that the GPL itself violates section 3 of the
DFSG,
it cannot be freely modified. (See:
A useful summary of the position of debian-legal on this point is
here:
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is not completely unmodifiable, you just have limitations
on how you may modify it and still use it as a license.
The FSF has given blanket permission to modify the GPL except for the preamble.
--
Andrew Donnellan
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software. (Excepting, for legal reasons, the text of
the work's license(s).)
This is
On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a
licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of
the GPL otherwise is not allowed because it doesn't satisfy the DFSG.]
The only exception is base-files,
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 05:55:14PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 6/1/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note that this only applies to the GPL when it is serving as a
licence under which a work in Debian is released. Random inclusion of
the GPL otherwise is not allowed because it
On 6/1/06, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the base-files package is under the GPL itself, so it's not
a random inclusion. It applies to several copyrightable pieces like
/usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ or /usr/share/doc/base-files/README.base
-- and even if it wasn't the case,
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public
License, included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
was recently removed because the license
The CID Font Code Public License is non-free, per the discussion linked to by
bug 211765.
At the time, Branden couldn't find anything actually under the license.
One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils'
package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright
I can't answer most of these questions.
But you will probably be helped by the fact that databases, as mere
collections of facts, are usually *not copyrightable*, certainly not in the
US. So these documents are most likely in the public domain. I believe this
is the way to go: unless there
Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For additional safety, can the infrastructure accept GPG-signed submissions?
This could be a problem, if it is a requirement. In many case
localisers are not technical people, and this could be a strong
barrier to usage.
I think that we don't need to
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:25:43 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote:
Actually, the base-files package is under the GPL itself, so it's not
a random inclusion. It applies to several copyrightable pieces like
/usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ or /usr/share/doc/base-files/README.base
-- and even if it wasn't the
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is not completely unmodifiable, you just have limitations
on how you may modify it and still use it as a license.
The FSF has given blanket permission to
On 6/1/06, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/1/06, Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is not completely unmodifiable, you just have limitations
on how you may modify it and still use it as a license.
On 6/2/06, Jordan Abel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you omit the preamble and still use the license as the GPL
(including redistributing works that were already licensed under the
GPL, including referring to it as the GPL, etc)?
If so, debian has no legitimate reason for making the preamble an
15 matches
Mail list logo
