[Barak Pearlmutter's mail comes back no matter how I send it,
so I am posting to the list]
The FAQ is very good. Here are some suggestions for further
improvement.
26. [...]
OSS was also meant to sound more professional and hence
more attractive to businesses.
You might also mention after
There's also:
15. Q: Why are almost all these dual licenses dualed with the GNU
GPL?
... QPL is under GNU/Qt ...
It doesn't make much sense, I think the author means something like Qt
is under GPL/QPL. :-)
--
Romain FRANCOISE [EMAIL PROTECTED] | When we were kids, we hated
it's
It has been pointed out on debian-devel that your mplayer package
includes DVD Content Scrambling System decoding!:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01827.html
(Refer libmpdvdkit2/*css*)
I hope you understand how serious this is and how many problems you
would have
Adam Warner wrote:
I'm please to see what has been done Andrea. I believe the copyright
file can be improved by these completely unofficial suggestions
(suggestions start with *):
This package was first debianized by * TeLeNiEkO * [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:24:04 +0100.
Sorry about that. The mail server I use crashed, and during
restoration the sysadmin turned on the SMTP server before restoring
the accounts, unceremoniously bouncing days of incoming queued email.
I should be reachable again. And if anyone wants a relaxing job as
sysadmin of a friendly
sorry
last time there was a discussion, it was mainly on licenses and
copyrights, and I was so focused on them that I didn't think
of the CSS code
I will prepare and test an 'mplayer' without the above code
(a la xine) and come back soon
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:56:50PM +1200, Adam Warner
... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
that effect, at least as I read it, and as I
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:41, A Mennucc1 wrote:
sorry
last time there was a discussion, it was mainly on licenses and
copyrights, and I was so focused on them that I didn't think
of the CSS code
I will prepare and test an 'mplayer' without the above code
(a la xine) and come back soon
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
that people put (c) in computer programs to assert their copyright.
Actually, the convention is
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:51:19AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Thanks. I hope there's no chance your 23 July upload to the new package
queue could be approved:
There's very little chance that anything called mplayer could be
approved :P
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :'
Package: perl-doc
Version: 5.8.0-18
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi,
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
Here is an extract from the bottom of the manpage:
Distribution Conditions
Copyright 1998 The Perl Journal.
When included
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
that people put (c) in computer programs to
Scripsit Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
(This does not add much, I know, but I felt the cc: to debian-legal
ought to result in some kind of response from us d-l people).
--
Henning
14 matches
Mail list logo
