On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:31:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote:
The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free,
Agreed. There are some additional problems:
* TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright
*
* Users of this software incur the obligation to make their
Hello debian-legal,
It was recently brought to my attention that my package, ircd-hybrid,
currently in the archive under main/net, needs to be corrected one way
or another due to its use of OpenSSL for encrypted server-to-server
connections. The source itself is licensed under pure GPLv2.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 10:55:45PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
It was recently brought to my attention that my package, ircd-hybrid,
currently in the archive under main/net, needs to be corrected one way
or another due to its use of OpenSSL for encrypted server-to-server
connections. The
[for debian-legal people: please Cc: to me, I'm not subscribed to the list]
Currently some of newbiedoc documentation (including mine) are
licensed under GFDL. To make sure newbiedoc can stay in main,
I'm planning to change the license. What license is recommended?
The document is written in
Felix E. Klee wrote:
I guess that most of you are informed about software patents and know
that they are incompatible with most, if not all, free software licenses
(if not visit http://tinyurl.com/k64f).
No need to encrypt and hide URLs or did I miss something important?
While planning this
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:40:10 +0200 Martin Schulze wrote:
Felix E. Klee wrote:
I guess that most of you are informed about software patents and
know that they are incompatible with most, if not all, free software
licenses(if not visit http://tinyurl.com/k64f).
No need to encrypt and hide
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 09:58, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
DFSG use word software which have several meanings. Because DFSG does
not specify which particular meaning it use, there is a way to speculate.
Actually it *does* define what it means. See Social Contract,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:06:49 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I will grant that these definitions are imperfect and improbable
arguments could be lodged against them; at the same time, I believe
that reasonable
Richard Braakman wrote:
I would recommend this book if the compiler were free :-)
I'm not claiming that the *book* is software; it's quite hard, as
I found out when I dropped it on my foot. But its source code
certainly is.
I agree, source code is still program, even if it is printed in the
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:38:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But now you're telling me it distributes Software,
Documentation... anything else in there?
Configuration files, templates, icons, menu entries, sound effects,
change logs, message catalogs...
Sheesh, that's complicated. I used
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Please understand that the readers of -legal have been subject to no
less than half a year (or are we at a year now...?) of GFDL
discussions,
Almost two years now.
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:02:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote:
* TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright
*
* Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to
* inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software.
Fails the desert island
Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote:
* TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright
*
* Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to
* inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:38 +0200 Felix E. Klee wrote:
You can see an example on the FFII web site at http://www.ffii.org.
There is a special page set up now with more examples:
http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo
Felix
--
To contact me in private don't reply but send mail to
felix DOT
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
In this case I buy nothing but freedom for this program.
I can also say: freedom for people to use this program on less
restrictive license.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Please understand that the readers of -legal have been subject to no
less than half a year (or are we at a year now...?) of GFDL
discussions,
Almost two years now.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:11:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:38:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But now you're telling me it distributes Software,
Documentation... anything else in there?
Configuration files, templates, icons, menu entries, sound
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, read debian-legal archive since 2001, before you think you
understand what DFSG is about. DON'T RELY ON DICTIONARIES!.
Alternatively, ask someone who knows or rely on good dictionaries.
Now, can this thread please die until there is new
On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 06:39 US/Eastern, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
The document is written in the SGML format, so I don't think
GPL is the best in this case. For example, if you want to mirror
the HTML version of the ducument, GPL forces you to mirror the
SGML source as well or at least add a
20 matches
Mail list logo
