On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
> What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
> license?
The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
(sorry for the document format).
Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.
--
Luca Brivio
Web:
你好
我是中关村二手网 http://www.pc26.com
希望大家到我们的网站去看看，免费注册会员，然后再免费把你的产品信息发布上来，让我们广大的会员能看到你的信息，方便和你联系！
另外我们的网站免费注册会员的期限就要到了，如果你还没有免费注册，请尽快登陆注册。机会不容错过！千万的商机在向你招手！
我们的网站有很多的求购信息！希望你能联系以下，帮你找到商机！
网络店铺，帮助您生意更加兴隆。
如果这封邮件打扰到您！请您给予谅解，删除即可。
有什么问题和我们联系我的电话010-82853069-802 斯
尊敬的财务负责人：
您好！
因我公司享有国家优惠政策，纳税率底于一般纳税公司。为了贵公司的利益得到提高，更能方便、
快捷的开到税务发票，现长期对外代开发票，贵公司如有下列情况需要可一一为您效劳：
一、 公司做帐、进、出口差额的；
二、 客户压低货价、利润微薄的；
三、 采购时需要正式票据报销的；
四、 其它涉税项目的。
我们以金额大小收费：
一、 商品销售发票（1%--2%）
二、 增殖税专用发票（4%--7%）
三、 运输、广告、其它服务（1%--2%）
四、 海关缴
> Also, in any sane legal
> system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence,
> even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they
> get.
In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going
on from both sides before he even co
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
>
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
>
> When the GN
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
>
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
>
> When the GNU Project started, t
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
to make software free. W
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
> pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
> others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
> The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
> years before Debian was started,
This is at least much of a "nasty cheap shot" as what I said. And
you've done it before.
It is not a "shot" at all. I was defending the FSF from an
accusation, not attacking Debi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
>
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
>
> 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sou
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
> free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
> software license I use. I will use any license.
>
> I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd m
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.
Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use. I will use any license.
I want
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
>
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
By saying "everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders". But hey!
We
Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
nasty. I could make
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
As I explained, this desire is usually impossible d
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
> would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
> ask why they should be the same, since
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote:
> "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
> more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
> copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently
> than the GP
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
> and documentation, as far as I can tell.
>
> Hello is an example program.
Yes... and thus both program and documentation.
> It is difficult
> to deal with s
On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel
that you need to the
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other
> > works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating
> > System is just part of that work.
On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002
Interesting. Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG? A
casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of
vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the
quarter con
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
It is difficult
to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a
case-by-case review.
I have never found it difficult.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> >you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> >Debian is to provide an
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
>how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
We consider even trivial software such as "Hello world" to be worthy of
Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to
u
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
> logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
> all to have a complete free operating system.
> If Debian already recognize that non-program software can
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
> > political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
> > essay, I just start writing my own essay
>
> Som
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay
Some people feel the same about software in general. It is
Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> > you can have on computer is part of the Operating Sys
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> Debian is to provide an Operating System
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> > word.
>
> Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
> tell. It seems to be a neolog
RMS wrote:
>The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
>here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue? As a GNU Project
contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing
quite a few other GNU P
RMS wote:
>For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
>in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
>only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
>The main dif
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
in the comp
RMS
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a
> computer* are software.
>
> Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret th
>> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
>> under section 3, do you still hold that position?
>
> GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example,
> distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
> medium.
Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a
computer* are software.
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.
I do not try to tell the
On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
under section 3, do you still hold that position?
GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, fo
Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. "Debian will remain 100% free software". That's the first line of the
Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free
*software*.
That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays,
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
>> DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
>
> Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
>
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only dis
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
>
> You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
>
> I have said nothing of the
"Brian W. Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis writes:
>> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
>> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
>> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in sourc
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like
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 dis
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
>> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
>> as well as compiled form".
>
>
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> > "transparent".
>
> I understand that; in fact, I was one of
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
> The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> "transparent".
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's no
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> > Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
> > violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
> > as well as compiled form"
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen
> wrote:
>> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
>> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source
>> code as well as compiled form".
>
>
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
as well as compiled form".
Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accept it.
>
> The arguments appear to be:
>
> 1) There are many GFDL manuals.
> 2) Th
> The arguments appear to be:
>
>1) There are many GFDL manuals.
>2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
> That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
> crucial.
But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license
for his program
On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am not interested in beating a dead horse.
You have been for at least a whole week. Please stop that.
Thanks.
Mike
I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.
You shouldn't have believed I actually wrote that, because he
misunderstood what I wrote. He omitted a crucial part of the
argument, so that what remained was absurd; then he went on at length
pointing out just how absurd it was.
The argument for that is that there are many
> such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> be interpreted to accept it.
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two
> You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
> be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
> manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
> way that single functions of Lisp are.
>
> R
> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
I have said nothing of the kind. The Debian developers decide what
Debian does, and
On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is
forward-looking. It
is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a
DFSG-free
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new
piec
Branden Robinson writes:
Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear. At least four GNU
Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and
were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions.
Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU docu
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Brian C wrote:
> I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to
> be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is
> solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not."
> then I think it is pretty clear that
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
> > GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accep
Richard Stallman wrote:
The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.
As one of those more inclined to listen to t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
> to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".
>
> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian deci
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
>
> I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred t
The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
The question at hand is whether Debian should acc
For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to
think about this as a use of a manual.
As it ha
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> > For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> > the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> > GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
>
> Why? because you're inhibiting the later re
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them?
Hmm.. within the te
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any free software or free documentation license that has nontrivial
> requirements can have results like this. For instance, there are
> cases where people choose not to use a GPL-covered program because the
> GPL has requirements that they don't wan
Someone writing
the (GFDL) manual for the GF45 compiler might have invariant sections,
but won't be willing to copy my rant into his work; better to rewrite
the section then annoy half the users.
The fact that you're talking about a hypothetical example decades away
suggests that
> It adds some practical inconvenience, but practically speaking the
> magnitude is not great, so there's no reason not to do it.
Let's say I write a (GPL) compiler for Perl 2045, and someone writing a
(GPL) sample implemenation of Fortran 2045 wants to borrow my regex code.
They can do so; the o
Title: auguri
Happy Easter From
Revue Agency Sales
Joyeuse Paques du
Magazine Agents commercials
Frohe Ostern von
Jurnal Andelsvertreter
On 7 Oct 2002, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 14:07, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode. thats not what
> i am concerned of.
Yes, but releasing the sourcecode is not what makes free software.
Really, it comes down to people's ability to
>From ignacio Fri Sep 6 11:56:41 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200
Received: from shannon
([147.156.161.144] helo=localhost ident=ignacio)
by shannon with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17n
MR. JOHN UDEH
Tel: 234-
>
> The teTeX distribution is free software; you can redistribute it
> and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version.
>
> On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 17:26, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Then they obviously should remove texinfo and all FSF info system as
> well, since it is TeX-based.
>
> A sad situation of ignorance: Debian people do not realize that they
> ALREADY use TeX with its LPPL-like reservation of the name TeX. They
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100
> From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX
> fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would
> be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.
unsubscribe
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
> > So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
> > each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
> > by Debian to the Usenet N
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
> Marcelo Magallon wrote:
> >It should be emphasized that this is something *newsreaders* use. What
> >the author says using this header is that he doesn't want email copies
> >of Usenet posts, which is similar but not the same as mailin
Raul Miller wrote:
You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic.
http://lists.debian.org/misc.html says about debian-legal
"Copyright, licensing and patent issues".
It doesn't explicitly say "relevant to Debian activities."
Do we need to change this?
My "something inte
All right, this is getting silly. I just talked to my brother who got
a letter to the editor published in the Economist. He didn't sign a
single thing, and there are no disclaimers. The Economist is based in
England, but it has offices in many countries. That subjects them to
almost every conce
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com
unsubscribe
Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com
Hi,
the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities.
In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned
(US Patent No. 5,995,745). This patent covers the underlying principle
July 30, 2000
FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN
Phone: Office: 0432-582384
Factory: 0432-256667
Fax: 0432-263777
E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear President,
Re:
Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds
As our introduction, it is informed that we are manu
July 30, 2000
FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN
Phone: Office: 0432-582384
Factory: 0432-256667
Fax: 0432-263777
E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear President,
Re:
Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds
As our introduction, it is informed that we are manu
0subscribe
0subscribe
debian-legal
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Copyproblem on some fonts I intend to package
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Feb 06, 2000
at 03:15:53PM +
Organization: Linux
X-URL: http://kenji.anu.edu.au/~chanop/
X-OS: Linux 2.2.14 i686
If one font has this copy
Hi all,
There is a multicol.sty new license (from the
tools package of LaTeX).
It's LaTeX license + some moral.
It probably raises questions that few of us can
properly answer both from the legal and
philosophical point of view, but it "tastes" like
"free".
Let's hope this will not disqualify
OK,
I have written the author of postilion, Nic Bernstein, and in his reply he
shared with me the reasons that the new copyright was added to the graphics
files included with postilion.
The artist of said graphics is concerned that they might be used in "just any
program". But, Nic is willing
100 matches
Mail list logo
