Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joerg Jaspert: So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed under the MPL. I'm not sure if it makes sense to revert that decision at this stage. -- To

Re: Debian packaging and (possible) Eterm license violations

2006-03-28 Thread Ed Hill
Hi Michael and Justin, Thank you for your help! I've submitted a bug (#359707) and will follow its progress. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Walter Landry
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Jaspert: So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few packages licensed under the MPL. Quite a few? What packages are those?

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:04:50 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Jaspert: So, I have some packages in NEW that are MPL only licensed. Whats the current way to go? Reject, accept? Accept. Debian currently distributes quite a few

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Raul Miller
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license).

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Raul Miller
(I think this sub-thread is heading off on a tangent, I've cut a bunch of material which seems to lead nowhere significant. If I cut something important, please feel free to correct me.) On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, I'll grant that the concept of copy and distribute is

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

2006-03-28 Thread Walter Landry
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is widely

Re: MPL license

2006-03-28 Thread Nathanael Nerode
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? Reject, unless the authors have announced relicensing

Re: GFDL'ed documents with Front Cover text

2006-03-28 Thread Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so, I expect it will be more efficient if we can approach the FSF for a blanket license change. No; from what we can tell, RMS is personally blocking even the simplest and most obvious license changes, and nobody with authority in the FSF will go up against him,