On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:39:28AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
However, just to correct Branden, being GPL-imcompatible does not make
the GFDL non-free.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I know it's not the case. A
consequence of writing mail in the small hours, I guess.
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the
article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and
'perlreftut', the derived manpage,
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's already separated from perl into perl-doc.
Then we cannot distribute it legally at all.
I'm not totally certain about that, as one could argue that perl-doc
is merely a segmentation of the entire perl
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
[snip]
(I find your reading to have so little to do with DFSG#1 that I'm having
difficulty figuring out where to start, so I'll leave that to others.)
Well, obviously his
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:05:18PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-option from
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:05:18PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Then we cannot distribute it legally at all.
The requirement is as part of the Standard Version of Perl, or as
part of its complete documentation, whether printed or otherwise.
I stand
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-option from
the perspective of users.
It's already separated from perl into perl-doc. Furthermore, in this
case, the information
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the perl
package documentation. Separating it from perl is a non-option from
the perspective of users.
It's already separated from perl into
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:13:00AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
non-option from the perspective of users.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
I
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
This manpage (and a few others) are very important parts of the
perl package documentation. Separating it from perl is a
non-option from the perspective of users.
Objection. The sole purpose of this manpage is to duplicate things
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
non-free...
#pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
[...]
#pragma end_sarcasm()
See what happens when I
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
non-free...
#pragma begin_sarcasm(1000)
Move perl to non-free?, things seem to be getting out of
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, the package containing it, which means creating a perl-doc-non-free
package.
But wait--we can't even do that, due to the very licensing we're discussing.
Even worse.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:55:55AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
I concur. Alternatively, the package containing it could be moved to
Package: perl-doc
Version: 5.8.0-18
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi,
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
Here is an extract from the bottom of the manpage:
Distribution Conditions
Copyright 1998 The Perl Journal.
When included
Scripsit Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that perlreftut(1) is quite non DFSG-free.
So it does. It will have to be relicensed or removed.
(This does not add much, I know, but I felt the cc: to debian-legal
ought to result in some kind of response from us d-l people).
--
Henning
19 matches
Mail list logo
