On Mon, Jul 28, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
It is important to note that libdvdcss is _NOT_ part of Drip. There are
unofficial libdvdcss packages around, and I added them to Build-Conflicts
to ensure Drip is not accidentaly linked against it.
Uh? I suggest you have a more precise look at
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
Uh? I suggest you have a more precise look at the Drip source code
and see how exactly it uses libdvdcss. My understanding is that it does
not at all: it only uses libdvdread.
No, autoconf checks for libdvdcss and if found Drip is linked
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
Ok. What are the necessary steps to request that we hire a lawyer to
resolve this? Can I do it on my own or is SPI the entity who should take
action here?
I don't know about those steps, but I have some additional information
about libdvdcss. As
=== CUT HERE ===
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 the Free Software
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
here equates the source.
This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function
names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't
wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues,
MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues.
(These are all issues of patents that
, 1994, 1995, Oliver Laumann, Berlin
(except for the contents of the directory `doc/usenix').
Copyright 2002, 2003 Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paris
This software was derived from Elk 1.2, which was Copyright 1987, 1988,
1989, Nixdorf Computer AG and TELES GmbH, Berlin (Elk 1.2 has been written
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Note that we're not really interested in decss, and libdvdcss is the
important one, so however this plays out it needs to result in a
decision that means libdvdcss is okay too (getting off on a
technicality is no good).
I'm not sure that the
On Thu, May 13, 2004, Niklas Vainio wrote:
abuse-sfx has been orphaned so there is no maintainer to do that. So I will
do it.
I am adopting the Abuse packages, but I first wqnt to get rid
of abuse-sfx by providing DFSG-free replacements for all sounds. I
currently have replacements for the
On Thu, May 13, 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:
Apparently they're the property of one Bobby Prince, who can be
reached via http://www.bpmusic.com. Perhaps you could persuade him to
release them under DFSG-Free terms?
Uhm, right. I'll try that.
--
Sam.
[Cc:ing -legal, but please try to follow-up on only one list]
I am having a chat tonight with people from the FSF. Despite the
inevitable disagreements between Debian and the FSF, I am willing to
cooperate in a constructive manner on as many topic as possible. Here
are the topics we'll be
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
I am Cc:ing the DPL, because I would love to hear whether there is any
progress on the Debian Logo licensing issue.
I am not aware of any recent development on this front: what's the
current plan?
Sam, this debian-legal thread starts here:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
To put it another way: whatever one thinks of the Debian logo policy,
it seems harsh on OP to make him comply with a stricter interpretation
of the DFSG than the Debian project currently applies to its own logo.
The whole reason the licensing
logical given its spirit :)
Regardless of any consideration about the license spirit, I read the
copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net) as
applying to the license text, not to the licensed work.
See for instance
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/toilet
14 matches
Mail list logo
