Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do
copylefted TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading
my position statement from committee D on the first
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
NB: please avoid needlessly embolding words: it only heatens
discussions that are better discussed calmly.[1]
I've emboldened key words that are important not to misunderstand. This
seems to be very important as responses to several of my posts indicate
that these word
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> >>>If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do copylefted
> >>>TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading my position
> >>>statement from committee D on the first discussion draft of th
Eric Lavarde - Debian writes:
> Hi,
>
> sorry that I answer so late but I was privately and professionally under
> time pressure.
>
>> On Sep 7, 2006, at 14:59, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
>>
>>> Background of question 3 is that someone on the list might have an
>>> idea
>>> which other license c
Hi,
sorry that I answer so late but I was privately and professionally under
time pressure.
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 14:59, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
>
>> Background of question 3 is that someone on the list might have an
>> idea
>> which other license could be acceptable to Sun (and I might sugge
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do copylefted
TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading my position
statement from committee D on the first discussion draft of the
GPL
URL please?
http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk
Hi,
We are a Recruitment Process Outsourcing(RPO) company, with offshore delivery
centers.
I understand that your organisation is constantly looking for recruiting
employees and that this may, as for all large organisations, mean considerable
costs and time delays.
As a dedicated Recruitmen
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> > These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing:
>> >
>> > | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the
>> > | following ones are also fine:
>> > | * the 3-clause BSD license
>> > |http://www.gnu.org
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month
> >> retainer, which I think is both a significant cost (so not free
> >> redistribution) and maybe a
Hello,
On Monday 16 October 2006, à 00:53:36, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> >> > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
> >> > publ
Walter,
Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not
following up sooner; please see question below.
On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> > (c) You must make Source Cod
NB: please avoid needlessly embolding words: it only heatens
discussions that are better discussed calmly.[1]
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
> >> Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG.
> >
> > No, it's not.
Francesco Poli wrote:
Being able to apply TPM by yourself is not enough, IMO. Because the
end user (as already said elsewhere) could be or feel to be not
skilled enough for the task. And please, do not repeat that TPM are
always easy to apply. They require some program that is often
closed-s
13 matches
Mail list logo
