On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:29:09PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
[I intent to send this to debian-devel-announce, please tell me if I'm
completely wrong]
Hi,
when reviewing several NMs' packages I came accross many broken
copyright files in recent weeks. Upon investigation I found that
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the
amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS
names.
Agreed, unfortunately - it is, and I suspect it may well. Suggestions for
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:39, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
If there is no creativity, then there is nothing copyrightable.
signature.asc
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, no offense, but that's ugly as hell, and is going to square the
amount of confusion people experience when trying to decode our OS
names.
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
Sure there is --
From a slightly different perspective, here's what you *should* do to
write a copyright file:
1) Find the license declaration in the upstream source. That should
look like this for GPLed works:
---
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:09:37PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
does anybody know what is going to happen with regard to LPPL-1.3, and
in which timeline? The latest mails I found were
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:21:30PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
I'll suggest Offler (or Om), Foorgol (I don't like Fate) and, um,
some other god coming out of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels,
preferably whose name starts with an N.
Or something like that.
One should never name the
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:21:30PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Feel free to propose alternatives from, say, the origional mythology which
spawned the concept of daemons as beings which were not inherently good or
evil, then.
I'll suggest Offler (or
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:41:50AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Branden Robinson in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian FreeBSD - Debian Forneus (BSD)
Debian NetBSD - Debian Naberius (BSD)
Debian OpenBSD - Debian Orobos (BSD)
[...]
Your proposal would change
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for
people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant.
But why use names correlated with evil when other options are
available which interfere less with Debian's
Re: Branden Robinson in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian FreeBSD - Debian Forneus (BSD)
Debian NetBSD - Debian Naberius (BSD)
Debian OpenBSD - Debian Orobos (BSD)
[...]
Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just
the same if you
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:30:04PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think you're seing spectres.
I think you didn't bother to read any of the parts of my message that
you didn't quote.
I did. But I trimmed away those that were not necessary for
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just
the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few
at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something
that would be helpful to Debian.
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:34, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Right, but since the plugin author clearly intended it to fit with and
accompany the host, there's no creativity on the part of the combiner.
And we're well back into argue it in court
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Street names from Berkeley have appeal, and few fundies assign
Manichean properties to asphalt.
Given Berkeleys' other famous export is LSD, how about:
acid,
sunshine,
sugar
etc.?
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
La Salle Debain -
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Street names from Berkeley have appeal, and few fundies assign
Manichean properties to asphalt.
Given Berkeleys' other famous export is LSD, how about:
acid,
sunshine,
sugar
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:11:20AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Unfortunately, my experience with the topic tends to indicate that the
same folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of
a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, foul, unclean, and all sorts of other
descriptives.
Cf.
19 matches
Mail list logo
