On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
> > assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
> > unknown terms.
>
> I don't t
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:23:57 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:05:00PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Good point, but where does it claim so?
>
> In the footer of every page. My quote:
>
> Copyright © 1997-2011 SPI and others; See license terms
>
> can be found in
Le Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting
> copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions
> get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about
> soft
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
> assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
> unknown terms.
I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people
opposing co
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:15:03 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
> A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right
> to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket
> permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will
> see fit, n
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206),
> include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future
> and (then) past contributors.
> I think this is the wrong approach.
>
> The Debian Project
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:50:17 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's
> > not [5].
>
> As a side point: the above claim of yours is no longer true, see
> #632175. The
Hello!
I see there's (at last) some activity on bug #388141 [1].
I am happy to see that, but I personally think it's going in a slightly
wrong direction... :-(
First of all, a brief summary of bug #238245 [2] and of bug #388141 [1]
(which started as a clone of #238245 [2]), for debian-legal read
8 matches
Mail list logo
