Dear knowledge source,
As can be seen in #294559 I hope to become a debian developer. In the
same bug report one can see that the package I'd like to start with is
netbiff.
According to it's web page the license is:
License
All code contained in netbiff is released into the public domain.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:12:32PM +0100, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
It have been claimed that PD is a vague definition and the way GNU
defines freedom, PD is only almost free because future versions might
not be free. But that only applies do derived works, right? My
understanding is that once
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
[-- This text/plain attachment is not included, --]
[-- and the indicated
3.2.1. Confusion over what constitutes the standard
It would clearly be confusing if someone could take an IETF standard
such as RFC 3270 (MPLS Support of Differentiated Services), change a
few key words and republish it, maybe in a textbook, as the
definitive standards for MPLS
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the Debian
Free Stuff Guidelines. It merely makes it clear that documentation is
included in software, at least as far as the SC is concerned.
I don't think
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
Thank you for writing a rebuttal, Glenn. I agree with
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] The Mozilla team seems to be committed to supporting the
Debian packagers in building both mozilla-firefox and
iceweasel-browser packages from the same source base. Isn't this
precaution enough?
We know the Mozilla Foundation licensing
On 11 Feb 2005 01:15:42 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider
free *documentation* and the main difference with free
software is I don't believe that it is essential for
people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles
and books.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:58:46AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the Debian
Free Stuff Guidelines. It merely makes it clear that documentation is
included
Josh King wrote:
Hi,
I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid
answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using
the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working
name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide
10 matches
Mail list logo
