Hi all.
A few months ago, I went over the package list manually to find IETF
I-D's, but I finally wrote a simplistic script to do this for me:
#!/bin/sh
Hi all,
I'm sorry but 'till now I didn't have time to keep up with this problem
OTOH you have a different problem: a four clauses BSD-like license is
not compatible with GPL-licensed code, and this means that the package
is not distributable at all.
So, what do I have to do now? Should I get
Those links are dead for me. I found some other urls in /misc -- are
they the same license?
(in the future, please include the full text of licenses in the body
of email requests -- urls often change, but debian-legal is archived
all over the place)
The folowng is ann analysys of the DFSG freeness of the current draft of the
GNU SFDL.
I was only looking to see if the problems with the current FDL are resolved
by the SFDL.
There may be new problems that I did not notice. I used Manoj's draft
position statement
to identify the problems with
Hi Francecsco,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 10:45:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The binary portability requirement implies that a user can take the
generated stub and associated files (helpers, holders, etc.) that
were generated using a particular vendor's IDL compiler, and use them
on
Hello,
I'm currently preparing an updated xMule package and found a statement,
which sounds a bit problematic. But I'm not a lawyer, so I ask you. E.g.
xLibs/DynPrefs/DynamicPreferences.cpp states:
// This file is dually licensed under the terms of the following licenses:
// * Primary License:
Daniel Leidert wrote:
I'm not sure of any of these licenses is DFSG-free. AFAIK the CC
licenses are considered non-free and I'm concerned about the OSSAL too
(that forbids linking against GPLed libraries). And the exceptions don't
seem to allow Debian to link against GPLed libraries.
Can you
Hi, everyone. Pardon the wide distribution, but I wanted to make sure I
didn't miss anyone.
As some of you know [1], a workgroup within Debian cooperating with
Creative Commons [2] to make some of their licenses compatible with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines [3] so that CC-licensed works
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:49:16PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Some of these documents MAY be freely available -- check with the
author -- but as far as I could see, in no case was this noted in the
copyright file, so I'm assuming they are redistributed based on the
IETF license, which I
Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free.
On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:
* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
And they can't be added, so it doesn't break copyleft.
* Transparent and Opaque definitions look OK this time.
*
10 matches
Mail list logo
