On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think you're probably right that this option, if exercised, would
> be non-free. However, I have never seen anyone exercise this
> particular option -- I had even forgotten it was there.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is res
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:36:17PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> 4 may be non-free: as RMS understands it, violating the GPL for a given
> work terminates any rights you have to it, now and in the future, even
> those which would otherwise be granted by having another copy of the
> work distrib
(I've reinserted a portion of the quote that you shouldn't have snipped.)
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:01:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I'm not quite comfortable with this `grandfathering' thing.
> > "if the GPL is not-quite-fre
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
"if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
be grandfathered as well?"
Except, it is free.
People have been "not comfortable" wi
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> "if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
> because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
> be grandfathered as well?"
Except, it is free.
People have been "not comfortable" with it for ages. Mos
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:59:55 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040519 00:25]:
> > I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10:
[...]
> If it's not a bug, then don't fix it. We have enough problems with
> unnecessary changes to the SC, so please leave DFSG#10 alone.
But I fee
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> In my opinion, both GPL 2c and Reiser's 'Anti-Plagiarism License' are
> merely different distances down the same slippery slope; if forcing
> derived works to have one line of credits is OK, why not ten?
A few of us[1] aren't particularly happy with GP
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:29:10PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
"Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show
license' for details", only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration
option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad?
"A
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:21:56PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which
> covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is
> free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and
> may be acceptable f
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:29:10PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> >"Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show
> >license' for details", only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration
> >option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad?
> >
>
> "Alexander Zar
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The link to the BSD license under DFSG 10 goes to the revised BSD
license. The DFSG written before the revised license; it should go to
the original one with the advertising clause (unfortunately).
- -- Syste
11 matches
Mail list logo
