On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> > terms of the licenc
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
>
> Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the
> terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need
> to now (eg dist
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > The fact that we have conveniently
> > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> > does not make it go away.
>
> It is my understanding th
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> The fact that we have conveniently
> ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> does not make it go away.
It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
/usr/share/common-licenses/ becaus
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:53:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
> >> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by
> >> reference.
> >
> > I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL:
> >
> >
#include
* Bernhard R. Link [Sun, Jan 09 2005, 02:26:51PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> nvtv: nvtvd.8.gz
Oh, sorry, was not a deliberate act. (Must have been from the time when
dh_make sugested this crappy license per default).
Maintainer: Please relicense under the
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 01:20:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
> > redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not
> > include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
> redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not
> include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially
> Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates d
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:53:25 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
>
> > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the
> >> named section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by
> >> refer
* Francesco Poli:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
>> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by
>> reference.
>
> I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL:
>
>
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:39:47 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
> section is reproduced in the gfdl(7) manpage, incorporated by
> reference.
I doubt that this would satisfy clause 4.H. of the G"F"DL:
H. Include an unalt
* Bernhard R. Link:
> Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
> redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not
> include the full licence text needed to be distributeable.
I think it's enough to add an additional notice stating that the named
section i
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Mark Brown: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> x86info: x86info.1.gz
This isn't Debian-specific since I contributed it back upstream. I've
contacted upstream about relicensing it under the GPL like the rest of
the package
14 matches
Mail list logo
