debian-legal Oct 2006 by thread
[
previous month
]
[
first page
]
[previous page]
Page 1 of 1
[next page]
[
last page
]
[
next month
]
[
Date Index
] [
Subject Index
] [
Author Index
] [
Other Debian Lists
] [
Debian Home
]
License review request
Sanghyeon Seo
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan
Re: License review request
Steve Langasek
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan
Re: License review request
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: License review request
Andrew Donnellan
Re: License review request
Sean Kellogg
Re: License review request
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: License review request
Robinson Tryon
Re: License review request
Nathanael Nerode
Re: License review request
Nathanael Nerode
Re: License review request
MJ Ray
Re: License review request
Evan Prodromou
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray
<Possible follow-ups>
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Henri Sivonen
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Markus Laire
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Michelle Konzack
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Nathanael Nerode
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Nathanael Nerode
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Francesco Poli
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Lewis Jardine
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Francesco Poli
Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray
Re: Object Management Group redistributable files
Francesco Poli
Re: Object Management Group redistributable files
Thomas Girard
New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds
Simon Josefsson
Re: New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds
Steve Langasek
Re: New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds
Simon Josefsson
Are source packages required to be DFSG-free? (was: Re: New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds)
Simon Josefsson
Re: Are source packages required to be DFSG-free? (was: Re: New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds)
Roberto C. Sanchez
Re: Are source packages required to be DFSG-free? (was: Re: New bugs filed regarding non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds)
MJ Ray
Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages (was: Re: Are source packages required to be DFSG-free?)
Simon Josefsson
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Gervase Markham
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli
Re: Licence for a file in tstat: is it compatible with Debian?
Sandro Tosi
Re: Licence for a file in tstat: is it compatible with Debian?
MJ Ray
Freeness of current draft of GNU SFDLv1
Joe Smith
Public discussion time for Creative Commons 3.0 license draft coming to a close
Evan Prodromou
Re: Public discussion time for Creative Commons 3.0 license draft coming to a close
Michelle Konzack
OSSAL/CC license of xMule parts
Daniel Leidert
Re: OSSAL/CC license of xMule parts
Gervase Markham
Re: OSSAL/CC license of xMule parts
Weakish Jiang
New draft of GFDL and GSFDL
Nathanael Nerode
Re: New draft of GFDL and GSFDL
Joe Smith
Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Kalle Kivimaa
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Kalle Kivimaa
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Francesco Poli
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Walter Landry
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Frank Küster
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Steve Langasek
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Frank Küster
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Bill Allombert
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
MJ Ray
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Markus Laire
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Marco d'Itri
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Anthony Towns
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Don Armstrong
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Roberto C. Sanchez
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Don Armstrong
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Roberto C. Sanchez
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Don Armstrong
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Roberto C. Sanchez
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Stephen Gran
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Francesco Poli
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Michael Poole
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
MJ Ray
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Don Armstrong
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Sven Luther
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Thomas Bushnell BSG
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Roberto C. Sanchez
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Jeff Carr
Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Francesco Poli
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Francesco Poli
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Francesco Poli
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Mark Brown
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Michael Poole
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Don Armstrong
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Don Armstrong
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Henri Sivonen
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Don Armstrong
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Terry Hancock
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray
Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
Nathanael Nerode
FWD: in refrence to debian-laptop-request promptly
Cruz Peel
Owner will be laid off
Evan Donne
conquer relicensing
vejeta@gmail.com
Re: conquer relicensing
Michael Poole
Re: conquer relicensing
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: conquer relicensing
Juan M. Mendez
Re: conquer relicensing
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: conquer relicensing
Joe Smith
Re: conquer relicensing
Nathanael Nerode
Re: conquer relicensing
Nathanael Nerode
Re: conquer relicensing
Michael Poole
Re: conquer relicensing
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: conquer relicensing
Michael Poole
Re: conquer relicensing
Juan M. Mendez
Re: conquer relicensing
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: conquer relicensing
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: conquer relicensing
Joe Smith
Re: conquer relicensing
Nathanael Nerode
compatibility of bsd and gpl
Matthew Wala
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Markus Laire
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Lewis Jardine
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
MJ Ray
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Matthew Wala
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Nathanael Nerode
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Arnoud Engelfriet
Re: compatibility of bsd and gpl
Nathanael Nerode
Dated Notice
Sean Porter
Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
Dr. ERDI Gergo
Re: Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
Andrew Donnellan
Message not available
Re: Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
Andrew Donnellan
Re: Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
Ben Finney
Re: Releasing a software implementation of a board game as Free Software
Nathanael Nerode
Re: math package maintainer for Debian
David Joyner
Re: math package maintainer for Debian
Dirk Eddelbuettel
No work tomorrow; Office closed
Nicolas Cusack
Offices have been closed permanently
Roberto Kennedy
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Ryan Finnie
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
luna
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Don Armstrong
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Nathanael Nerode
<Possible follow-ups>
Re: License review request: LinuxMagic FSCL
Nathanael Nerode
RPO
Peter Robinson
Re: [Fwd: Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib]
Eric Lavarde - Debian
Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib
Michael Poole
Re: public domain, take ∞
Nathanael Nerode
Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
Nathanael Nerode
Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Yahoo! DomainKeys license
Nathanael Nerode
Re: Yahoo! DomainKeys license
Magnus Holmgren
humanist
Edna Crouch
Why not use a non-us section for program with patent problems in US?
Hans Ekbrand
Re: Why not use a "patended" section for programs with patent problems?
Hans Ekbrand
Re: Why not use a "patended" section for programs with patent problems?
Daniel Baumann
Re: Why not use a "patended" section for programs with patent problems?
Pascal
main or contrib?
Al Nikolov
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Francesco Poli
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Joerg Jaspert
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri
Re: main or contrib?
Joe Smith
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri
font presents in http://www.webpagepublicity.com
Olive
<Possible follow-ups>
Re: font presents in http://www.webpagepublicity.com
Clemens Ladisch
Re: Freeness of a license - french
Steve Langasek
Help with bug #285156 - Non free translation
Amaya
Re: Help with bug #285156 - Non free translation
Amaya
3-clause BSD with additional disclaimers
Francesco Poli
Re: 3-clause BSD with additional disclaimers
Tim Post
Re: 3-clause BSD with additional disclaimers
Francesco Poli
Message refusé: Virus / Mail rejected: Virus
postmaster14_Snecma
kqemu license isue
Alexandre Garcia
Re: kqemu license isue
Daniel Baumann
non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Le_Vert
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Marco d'Itri
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Ben Finney
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Ben Finney
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Francesco Poli
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Ben Finney
Re: non-free license review + question for ftp-master
Francesco Poli
Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Ola Lundqvist
Re: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Ben Finney
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Goswin von Brederlow
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Ola Lundqvist
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Matthew Garrett
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Anthony W. Youngman
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Lewis Jardine
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Ola Lundqvist
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Francesco Poli
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Goswin von Brederlow
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Sven Luther
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Ola Lundqvist
Re: Bug#383481: Must source code be easy to understand to fall under DFSG?
Sven Luther
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
Francesco Poli
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
MJ Ray
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
Goedson Teixeira Paixao
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
MJ Ray
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
cascardo
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
MJ Ray
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
Goedson Teixeira Paixao
Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
Goedson Teixeira Paixao
[cascardo@minaslivre.org: Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL]
cascardo
The last update was on 05:58 GMT Fri Jun 28. There are 232 messages. Page 1 of 1.
[
previous month
]
[
first page
]
[previous page]
Page 1 of 1
[next page]
[
last page
]
[
next month
]
[
Date Index
] [
Subject Index
] [
Author Index
] [
Other Debian Lists
] [
Debian Home
]
Mail converted by
MHonArc