On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 15:46, Adam Majer wrote:
It can be found at:
http://people.debian.org/~adamm/LICENSE
Verdict: Non-free, violates DFSG 1. Details follow, after some
introductory notes.
First off, please always paste full license text to -legal. This helps
people like me who often
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 18:41, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
c) Modification, below, refers to the act of creating derivative works.
d) You, below, refers to each licensee.
What about translation? I guess it could be interpreted as modification,
but it should be explicitly included.
No
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 16:15, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
s/downgrade/upgrade/
;-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:15:26AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
s/downgrade/upgrade/
;-)
At least we're disagreeing very efficiently. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Hi,
I'm about to adopt the Debian package of latex2html. But before, I have
to sort out #204684 [1], a licensing problem (serious, RC). While we got
a license for the code of Mats Dahlgren, the other (and bigger) problem
in the main LaTeX2HTML license remains:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:20:26PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
[... disclaimer ...]
Use and copying of this software and the preparation of derivative
works based on this software are permitted, so long as the following
conditions are met:
A The copyright notice and this entire notice
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:32:11AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
However, I don't want to use this example to justify further
violations; I'm also not happy that some people think the current GFDL
discussion might imply that all issues about non-freeness can be
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:37:15PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
How about we find any software that still has the advertising clause and
aim to chuck it out of the archive? It can't be that difficult by now.
Ah, thank you, Mr. Suffield, for the typical extremism. I reply, as I did
in the first
On 2003-10-25, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:20:26PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
Maybe I should add that some files in latex2html are GPL'ed, which
possibly forces us / the maintainer to apply the GPL to the whole
package.
If some files are GPL, then
9 matches
Mail list logo
