Re: data on the consultants page

2005-11-06 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > He has been asking if we could add a note such as (just quoting): > "I think you should consider putting a note that the information on > http://www.us.debian.org/consultants/ is copyrighted by the Debian > project, and can be used only for customers

Re: data on the consultants page

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Donnellan
Is this spam email spam? I would think that you couldn't really copyright an email address. And who exactly is this spam from? If they are requesting something they should be traceable. Also, are other consultants getting the same? Is it really spam, or just heaps of inappropriate requests? Andrew

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Donnellan
Yes. I meant the copyright holder. Andrew On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put

Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)

2005-11-06 Thread Joe Smith
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be a shorter licence with the same effect as the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have one doubt: if

data on the consultants page

2005-11-06 Thread Thomas Huriaux
Hi, A consultant listed on http://www.debian.org/consultants/ reported that he is receiving "targeted spam", asking him to put his resume on some other servers (if you want to know more about this spam, I can ask him a copy). He has been asking if we could add a note such as (just quoting): "I th

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-06 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written > > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of > > the GPL, but a