After all if you allow someone to modify your code, it is logical to allow
for the same modification rights for the documentation
Hope this makes it clear ?
Yes, it does. Thanks.
--
Real name: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
Doctor
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 07:07:19AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Samuel Mimram ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
De plus, le package ira dans la section non-free de Debian, sauf si vous
choisissez une licence libre pour cette doc (la licence ci-dessus ne
l'est pas).
Maybe explaining
Dear Samuel,
I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion
of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit
Samuel Mimram wrote:
GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it.
Ah? I thought the consensus was more like GFDL is not acceptable for
Debian, maily because of the reasons explained in [1] but I might have
missed something.
Oops sorry, I read from the next release.
Sam.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
Dear Samuel,
I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:27:52PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just
because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian
Bonjour,
La doc de coq (tutoriel, ref man, lib et faq) est packagée depuis un
certain temps dans Debian mais je me suis aperçu récemment qu'il n'est
nulle part précisé que nous avons le droit de redistribuer ces fichiers.
J'imagine que cela ne vous pose pas de problème mais quelque chose de
Quoting Samuel Mimram ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
De plus, le package ira dans la section non-free de Debian, sauf si vous
choisissez une licence libre pour cette doc (la licence ci-dessus ne
l'est pas).
Maybe explaining to the people you're talking to why this licence is
not considered
10 matches
Mail list logo
