On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as
I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional
riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an
expert in licenses.]
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
What package? By whom?
Packages are those that I'm going to upload into debian - mplayer and
pound. I just thought that it's generic issue - i didn't know that I'm
supposed to check
日本一の出会い系サイトに目指す！
ただ今会員登録は20人以上、日5000人増員中
メルトモ！ヤリトモ！
必ず出会える
僕らの私達の！♪ＬＯＶＥ♪
↓↓AINO.COM ↓↓
http://divide.jp/ai/
携帯からアクセスもできますよ！
受信不要の方は↓
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
まで返信お願いします。
* Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030522 06:24]:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
definition of free software which is
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable
alternatives (not by
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030522 16:11]:
I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
But it is a reason, why the mozilla now exists does not change the
situation. It once was a
MJ Ray wrote:
(And thus makes it easier to
apply pressure to change the licence).
Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result
of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before?
Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening. I
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the
words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste
license, regardless of from where those words entered the
cut-and-paste license.=20
What do you mean by
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
slew of words! The branden misses!
Maybe Henning or I should package something really trivial with a license
such as we are debating, just to
For Duchamp, violating the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
artistic statement being made.
Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years
after Leonardo died.
He drew mustaches on a photograph of the painting, I think, and
exposed it.
He could show his
Comments? I didn't think the OpenLDAP license had the same restrictions
the OpenSSL one did...?
- Forwarded message from Kurt D. Zeilenga [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:15:03 -0700
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's
construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it.
Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper
phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire
Scripsit Alessandro Rubini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years
after Leonardo died.
He drew mustaches on a photograph of the painting, I think, and
exposed it.
I'm fairly certain that would fall under the right to quote. (Most
European
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:30:20PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Comments? I didn't think the OpenLDAP license had the same restrictions
the OpenSSL one did...?
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:
GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses
[...]
The OpenLDAP License, Version
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
distributed with GNU grep be itself available under the GNU GPL.
So every script that Debian distributes
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:01:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It seems wrong to me that we can take a free, but GPL-incompatible
application out of Debian main and hand it to two software distributors.
Each distributor grabs a different ABI-compatible implementation of a
shared library
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned
Don Armstrong said:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's
construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it.
Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper
phrasing of such a construction is to
19 matches
Mail list logo
