On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:47:28PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
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,
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
particular kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 allows
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft. While possible
in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it. As
Henning said, it is really just an oversight. The intent is clear,
which may sway a court more than the
Hi Peter and Andrew,
thanks for your mails.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 01:59, Peter Palfrader wrote:
A proper copyright file looks like this:
[...]
| Authors: Donald Duck, Daisy Duck
|
| Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Donald Duck
| 2000, 2002 Daisy Duck
|
| This program is free
As an aside, the questions that were sent to Mr. Mewburn have been
forwarded to the rest of TNF's Board, and scheduled for discussion on their
next conference call (in a couple of days). His personal reaction to the
thought of renaming the ports to 'codenames' was quite positive; in his
(personal)
Peter Palfrader wrote:
when reviewing several NMs' packages I came accross many broken
copyright files in recent weeks. Upon investigation I found that many
(many!) copyright files in the archive are not really any better.
The example of how copyright files should not like has an unsurprising
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Of course, I don't really think we should merit religious nonsense with
the honour of giving name to the products of Debian labour anyway...
And if we do, let's
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Christian Kurz wrote:
On [15/12/03 1:59], Peter Palfrader wrote:
| Authors: Donald Duck, Daisy Duck
|
| Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Donald Duck
| 2000, 2002 Daisy Duck
|
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
[...]
|
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: libdvdread3
Version: 0.9.4-3
Severity: critical
The debconf note says:
-- snip --
Many DVDs use css. To play these, a special library is needed to
read them, libdvdcss. Debian
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:09:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Having cheated and grabbed an online resource for it from Google, the
following possibilities show up (my apologies for the lack of accents;
I can't easily input
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:16, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Because I only checked a hundred or so and over 30 of them were broken.
My favorite example so far is fakeroot,
Isn't that Joost's original copyright message though? How the original
author chooses to write their copyright/licence
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 07:03:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
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
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: libdvdread3
Version: 0.9.4-3
Severity: critical
This is not a critical bug. This is a serious bug. The definition of a
critical bug
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather
like the notion of using the Valar - they're fictional, and Tolkien's work
isn't yet out from
With the recent dicussion about improper package copyright files[1], I
would like to make sure the copyright files for the packages I maintain
are correct. I've decided to start with jabber-yahoo and have found
that my initial copyright file is indeed lacking, but I'm not entirely
sure how to
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:40:11PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a
nice ring to it, and then there's always the valar.
[Licenses left inline for further commentary.]
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:15:13PM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
With the recent dicussion about improper package copyright files[1], I
would like to make sure the copyright files for the packages I maintain
are correct. I've decided to start
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:37:38PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: libdvdread3
Version: 0.9.4-3
Severity: critical
This is
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a
nice ring to it, and then there's always the valar.
Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek,
19 matches
Mail list logo
