On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:33:38AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> > And this has all been discussed before.
> Obviously not often enough for you.
Oh, I'd much rather be doing something other than discussing this, but as
long as people are going to misrepresen
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
> > Since I sent the initial mail in this thread, we got confirmation that
> > Fedora had the exact same concerns about this font, which finally has
> > never been packaged for it.
>
> Do you have a reference for that?
From: Rahul Bhalerao
To: "Indian Linux
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Do others see any other needs for that "license" to be considered
> free?
It depends on upstream's interpretation of the clause 1 and 2.
Possible interpretations I can think of:
1.
1.1. Every user must perform a ceremony to celebrate Y
(please keep CC again in answers, thanks)
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
> I'm no expert, but there doesn't appear to be any permission to
> modify, trivially non-free.
Yes. That seems to be the major blocker.
Do others see any other needs for that "license" to be considered
free?
Since
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
>> This font's license is not one of the usual licenses we know about and
>> the text is written as is:
> ...
>> What is the debian-legal experts opinion on this license?
>
> I'm no expert, but there doesn't appear to
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:55:22 -0400
Sons Oftheinternet wrote:
> *PRESS RELEASE
> **
> http://tinyurl.com/cloudleft
>
> Major Vendors and FSF Announce Instigation of Cloud Alliance and New
> Open Source License
> *
> CLOUD 9, THE CLOUD®, April 1 2009 (CCT): Today, major cloud vendors,
> in conjun
6 matches
Mail list logo
