Hi.
I normally don't read this list (so don't shout at me if I'm dumb ;)
but as an affected maintainer I have read the interpretation
of this licence and have a question.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
--- Debian-legal summary ---
The OPL (Open Publication
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Hi.
.. stuff ...
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It
states
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
You must cause the modified files to carry
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
You must cause the modified files to carry
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:07:18AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. For many cases, I'm
afraid, this would simply end up taking up most of our time following
the forms of producing summaries. My judgement was that there is no
real controversy on
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little
more formality in d-l
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of how this discussion developed is that a GPL
license + a clause about allowing small non-commercial _paper_
printing runs to not have to provide sources, applied to software
documentation would be DFSG-free and is generally
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the desert
island test) described? They don't seem to be in the definition of the DFSG
on debian.org, a search on debian.org for dissident brings up no results,
and it's not clear that an outside person who looks at a summary would
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the
desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the
definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for
dissident brings up no results, and it's not clear that an
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 19:41 -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the
desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the
definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little more formality in d-l summaries.
What would be nice is
13 matches
Mail list logo
