* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [090328 23:46]:
And this has all been discussed before.
Obviously not often enough for you.
Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter.
A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred
format for modification of
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [090328 23:46]:
A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the
preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a
program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions
of
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel
Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes
Hello,
I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1
or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover
In message 20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader
wea...@debian.org writes
I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my
choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can
redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't
In message 20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de,
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes
- only that they output the same documentation.
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:02:07 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If,
however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ...
Please reconsider your claim after thinking about typesetting,
formatting, mathematical formulas,
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:02 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de,
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes
- only that they output the same documentation.
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org:
I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1
or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts,
Acknowledgement or Dedication sections.
How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree.
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416
doesn't seem to mention it being
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: [...]
A recent (Dec 2008) addition with no grounding in the DFSG. If I see PDFs
being rejected with this rationale when it's not a question of license
compliance (PDFs distributed under the GPL certainly have to have source
with them, but that's not a
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the
LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1.
Could you please
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:33:59 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...]
I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug
report should be filed against gammu.
What do others think?
Reopen and
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org asked:
was the EUPL[1] previously reviewed already?
I found this answer at
http://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?query=eupl+draft
It appears to have a shed-load of problems, but the EUPL is trivially
upgradable to a number of good free software licences (section 5
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote in message
news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org...
4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license
with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor
do you have to identify the FLTK license in your
program or
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:43:14 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the
LGPL-2.1... which it appears to
* Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk [090329 12:03]:
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to
hard to change
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:36:02 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
EUPL v1.1 full text:
Thanks Miriam!
European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v1.1
Copyright (c) 2007 The European Community 2007
[...]
5. Obligations of the Licensee
The grant of the rights mentioned
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license
versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim
sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in
the GNU LGPL v2.1...
I was looking at the
reopen 521448 !
retitle gammu: gnapplet.sis requires packages which are not in our archive
stop
Justification: Policy 2.2
This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
message, while gammu's source does contain source code for
gnapplet.sis, it requires packages which are not in
19 matches
Mail list logo
