On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 00:12 +0200, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
I was thinking about package it for Debian GNU/Linux, but i found a
licence issue. You have a GPL program (live-f1) linking with OpenSSL.
This is only ok if you gave a license exception for this otherwise
the two licenses are
88888888
This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
it, and many have claimed
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 00:25 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 00:16 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 04:48 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your
distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of.
No, that would be nothing to do with respect or gratitude; but a simple
licence problem. We require
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 23:12, Anthony Fok wrote:
I just did some experiments, and it seems that the prettier version
(http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with
FreeType's autohinting on. In that case, I suggest modifying
/etc/fonts/local.conf and uncomment the
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
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 16:33, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 03:18:29PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 06:04:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This has come up before. SPI was asked to look into the trademark
violation involved. IIRC, the proprietor
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:16, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Because I only checked a hundred or so and over 30 of them were broken.
My favorite example so far is fakeroot,
Isn't that Joost's original copyright message though? How the original
author chooses to write their copyright/licence
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:00, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I will
point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
though it is under the MIT/X11
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
- un logiciel can even be used to mean a software program, whereas
the phrase a software sounds awkward to me in English (but then
again, I'm not a native English speaker,
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote:
That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable
stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under
most definitions of open source.
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally
not the case, I will stop
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 11:09, Mathieu Roy wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because it's out of the scope of
_software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
software).
Mathieu can say
A Cc: was not necessary, I'm subscribed to debian-legal.
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 12:29, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines theses
works
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 13:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In some countries, it's accepted as a valid proof of the origin of
the email.
A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 18:56, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
hardly be a valid proof of anything.
In some countries like in France it's truly accepted in court like a
valid
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 09:40, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The FSF would like to continue cooperating with Debian in such areas
where Debian's and the FSF's policies agree. However, we will not
cooperate with people that treat us
GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
The following two changes are made in this revision:
-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
and
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 23:09, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The
Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the
Sorry for the 3 GFDL-related e-mails in a row, but I discussed some of
this stuff with my solicitor today, who I was seeing on an entirely
unrelated matter but who quite enjoys these little discussions we have.
His opinion is that the following is entirely legal and breaches neither
Copyright or
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:30, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:28, Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:51, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
derived work without written permission.
No, it forbids the use of their names in derived *Products*, not
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 19:51, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I don't know why you mention the GPL at all. You cannot combine code
under the GPL with proprietary software, nor can you have any kind of
invariant section in GPLd code.
If you define invariant section as a section of the software that
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
that people put (c) in computer programs to
If anyone's got a free moment or two, could they pass opinion on the
following as a licence. I'm especially interested in how it'd interact
with other licences, esp. the GPL.
# This work may be modified and distributed under any terms, licence
# or agreement that meets all the conditions set out
31 matches
Mail list logo
