[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Musical files and chords]]

Hi all, Here is a mail I received from mma's upstream. He provides a link to a page giving good information on public domain musics, and how to identify them. I found the explanation useful, and have be referenced somewhere (like the archives of this list). Raphael -Message transféré-

unsubscribe

_ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx

Re: Status and futur of ArgoUML package(s)

On Jan 18, 2004, at 12:45, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Thanks for your help. ArgoUML project[1] does put this library in their CVS[2]. Do you think it's legal? I already did warn them[3], Was I wrong or right? There are provisions in there allowing redistribution under certain terms. It's a very

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

On Jan 15, 2004, at 08:08, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it copyrightable APIs, Since when is an API protected by copyright? And where? Finally found it again!

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

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

Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices

A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it

Re: Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:54AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation (GFDL).

Re: Non-Free GFDL and correct packaging practices

Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but distributed in binary form in the correct package. As a

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 15, 2004, at 08:08, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it copyrightable APIs, Since when is an API protected by copyright? And where?