On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
8 bears a lot of resemblance to don't break the law clauses, which
used to be considered DFSG free, but which now are increasingly not.
By *whom*? I haven't seen anyone offer a solid argument that don't
break the law clauses are acceptable, I don't
Takk for din henvendelse.
Vi vil besvare deres henvendelse så snart en av våre konsulenter er ledig.
Vi bestreber oss på å svare innen en time, men ved stor pågang av telefoner
kan det ta noe lengre tid.
Vårt kundesenter er åpent alle dager mellom kl 08:00 - 22:00.
Dersom du sender din
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:31:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The only serious arguments I've seen (and given) for the GPL failing
DFSG#1-9, as actually applied by d-legal, are the changelog and output spam
requirements. Neither of those are relevant to copyleft at all, so this
statement is
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:31:44 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Of course, the not comfortable in the message you replied to was
referring to grandfathering, not to the freeness of the GPL, so it
didn't really make much sense as a reply.
Yes. Thank you for highlighting this (just in case it wasn't
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
I agree strongly with this sentiment.
Thanks for expressing it,
--
Raul
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
I agree, but I don't think we should force-fit it by modifying our
interpretation of the DFSG or by being less strict than we are with
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:52:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I agree, but I don't think we should force-fit it by modifying our
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
Please don't speak as if this interpretation has consensus; you know that
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:14:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Please
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:35:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
On
What alternate interpretations have any plausibility?
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:46:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
That has already been discussed at length in this thread, so I have to
assume that you're either not actually reading the thread, or that you're
deliberately wasting my time.
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
following text, is not okay.
That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the
licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to say WHAT you
12 matches
Mail list logo
