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
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 concern
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
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, 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 distribut
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 2.
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
Eur
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 lice
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: o
>> 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
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:30:52PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.
If Debian is going to declare
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does that mean that you don't release your programs under a free
> > license, or that you never thought about the license you use, or that
> > you consider your choice of license to be severable fro
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
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 make it completely obvious what we
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
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.
* 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 w
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 c
* 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 whic
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。
> > > 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 chec
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
