On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Frank said:
assume a document licensed under GFDL, with no invariant sections (and
...) has a front cover text (like A GNU Manual) and a back cover text
[...]
What should the developers do in order to make it DFSG-free
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really
non-free mails.
So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the
current way to go? Reject, accept?
(Hopefully not a check every package if it has , like
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really
non-free mails.
It is indeed non-free.
So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
example).
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really
non-free mails.
It is indeed non-free.
It is, in
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of
O Domingo, 26 de Marzo de 2006 ás 20:57:35 +0200, Mike Hommey escribía:
The GPL does require something similar.
Not exactly. The GPL requires you to provide source alongside binary; when
you stop offering the binary, you may stop offering the source. However,
under the MPL, you must go on
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 01:08:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
This implies that a document with no invariant sections, but with
one-sentence front- and back-cover sections does not meet the DFSG?
Is that Debian's position?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
^^
[...]
I
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, GMP has Front-Cover Text
A GNU Manual
and Back-Cover Text
You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software
and no invariant sections. Must I really throw this document
out of Debian (BTS
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:57:35 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:05:52AM -0800, Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian. It
requires keeping the source around for every binary for at least six
months.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:53 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian
kernel team, based on the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds and others
seems to be accurate credit, doesn't it?
It's an arguably accurate
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
misleading) credit?
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and others
Start from a troublesome license and patch it hard so that it is
`forced' to meet the DFSG?
I don't regard
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
prohibited.
Only if these copies are are made available to people whose
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have approached the GMP developers both on the GMP list and
privately. It turns out that the copyright is assigned to FSF so they
have no authority (or so they claim) to change the license. I was
advised to contact FSF about it.
Please ask them what
17 matches
Mail list logo
