Patrick Herzig wrote:
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
As I have already said in a previous message
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander
Natarajan,
I am most likely not the person to be asking these questions of.
You ask:
Can I conduct a Course called Debian Certified Engineer (DCE)
without asking permission anybody
You may want to ask this question on the debian-legal list. One
could certainly have a Certified Engineer
On 2/16/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I respectfully suggest to Debian and Software in the Public Interest,
Inc. to consider sponsoring a new glasses (let's not dilute $4 million
grant from OSDL) to crazy Eben, and let him take a brief look at ...
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
Because the deterrent
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:16:54 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:13:21 +0200 Ville Oksanen wrote:
Hi,
I hope that this might be something useful for the people here. We (as
in HUT/SoberIT/COSS)are currently developing a tool for checking the
license information inside FOSS-packages. The idea is to make it
simple to get a quick
On 2/15/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are
also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6).
I wish I could
On 2/16/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation
of what free is was broader at the beginning than the current
interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close
didn't exist; you would have said that a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
some software important to Debian would have been treated as
non-free. I think it's also safe to
12 matches
Mail list logo
