Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Frank Lin PIAT a écrit : Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: First, network protocols that do not allow to display anything are abundant, since no network protocol displays anything -- clients that use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig). [..] Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand the source. I disagree with your interpretation. The AGPL states prominently offer all users, displaying at protocol level doesn't comply with either prominently nor with all users (because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.) Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service. I fail to see how it would be more prominently offered. At least tcp/25 is related to the service itself, a website has nothing to do with it. (I mean, there /might/ be a website offering the service, but in most cases there is not). Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
On mer, 2008-03-19 at 16:45 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: It seems logical that everybody who is AM approved has successfully passed the various checks. Yes, but, as we say here: « cela va sans dire, mais ça va encore mieux en le disant » (“it goes without saying, but it goes better saying it”, sorry for the poor translation). When you register to NM process, you're asked to check boxes if you agree to Social Contract etc. But those checks aren't really enough. What you have is to say (somewhere on a signed mail) that you agree. Currently only the AM receives the mail, and translate this in his AM report, using a signed mail. And we trust AM that the NM sure has agreed to DSFG, Social Contract, … It's still a good idea to have, at some point, the confirmation. Maybe you'd prefer, like DM, that the mail would be sent, signed, to debian-nm? Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal - Use Cases
On sam, 2007-06-30 at 16:30 +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: It would probably be helpful to clean the listing from those in NM. I guess I know a way to clean them :) Regards, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2007: Draft ballot
On sam, 2007-03-10 at 11:04 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Or are we going to require an IQ test before people allowing to vote, It's called Tasks Skills isn't it ? -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
