On Thu, 04 Nov 2004, John Cowan wrote:
> Francesco Poli scripsit:
> > And that is probably another issue with contract-ish licenses: who is
> > going to accept contracts? ftp-masters and all the mirror operators?
> > That sounds problematic...
>
> You are already distributing code under the MPL li
Francesco Poli scripsit:
> And that is probably another issue with contract-ish licenses: who is
> going to accept contracts? ftp-masters and all the mirror operators?
> That sounds problematic...
You are already distributing code under the MPL license, which is a
contract, in debian-stable main.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:49:12 -0500 John Cowan wrote:
> Francesco Poli scripsit:
>
> > a) releasing the work under a real copyright license grant (such as
> > the Expat a.k.a. MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
>
> The AFL *is* a "real copyright license grant"; it already grants
>
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> If you can point to a US statute or case law echoing the above, or in
> some way suggesting that it's relevant to the US, then it might help
> give me the specific question for the FSF that I'm hunting for.
Well, Lynn v. Raney (1964 OK 212, 400 P.2d 805) is a real-proper
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:26:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The whole definition of "bare license" means a license that is unsupported
> by consideration (i.e. not a contract):
>
> A bare license must be executed by the party to whom it is given
> in person, and cannot be made over o
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:11:33PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> How do you define what is part of our system, and from what you derive
> this definition?
Fundamentally, everything we put in Main is a part of our system. I get
that definition from looking at debian cds, installing debian on machin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 04:42:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
>> ignore it's running on your system? Which part of the policy or SC
>> justifies this theory?
>
>No, I've been saying that non-free softw
Francesco Poli scripsit:
> a) releasing the work under a real copyright license grant (such as the
> Expat a.k.a. MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt)
The AFL *is* a "real copyright license grant"; it already grants
everything the MIT license does and more.
> *and*
>
> b) offering
> >> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> >> >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
> >> >> theory?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >If I ignore something as a par
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
>> >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
>> >> theory?
>If I ignore something as a part of a syst
10 matches
Mail list logo
