On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 07:11:50AM +0300, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
13-Jan-04 14:52 Branden Robinson wrote:
I personally[1] would maintain that a requirement to change a filename
is an unacceptable restriction on one's freedom to modify the work. The
LaTeX Project no longer appears to be
13-Jan-04 14:52 Branden Robinson wrote:
I personally[1] would maintain that a requirement to change a filename
is an unacceptable restriction on one's freedom to modify the work. The
LaTeX Project no longer appears to be interested in contending this
issue, and I know of no other copyright
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:53, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
(if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
copyrighted in the US)
This doesn't help Debian; I think the bitmap font copyright thing
is an isolated strangeness of US law.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
(if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
copyrighted in the US)
This doesn't help Debian; I think the bitmap font copyright thing
is an isolated
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
[...]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is
this
in non-free?
This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
Craig,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
some people expressed doubt about the
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:21, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all
the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence
becomes a composite of the GPL and his
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
(if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
copyrighted in the US)
This doesn't help Debian; I think the bitmap font copyright thing
is an isolated strangeness of US law.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must
be
renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
We probably don't have
[ I've taken the liberty of cc'ing debian-legal, where license issues
are discussed. -legal readers probably want to drop -vote. Reply-to
set. ]
On Jan 10, 2004, at 02:57, Craig Sanders wrote:
X3270
-
x3270 seems to be free. IMO, maintainer is overly cautious
about
11 matches
Mail list logo
