Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:45:19 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:15:19 am Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:58 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: [...] > > Neutrality? We are not on Wikipedia, here! > > I clearly stated that I was going to express my own personal opi

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > [dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they care > about this...] [Yes, I agree.] [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...] [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap val

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-03 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:45:19PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > While looking up the specific clauses for disclaimer and liability, I > noticed section 12 of GPLv3. Curious as to how that clause is not > essentially the same as the non-export clause? As a resident of the United > States, I am boun

Re: BOINC: lib/cal.h license issue agree with the DFSG?

2010-01-03 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:15AM +0100, Andrew Dalke wrote: > By that reasoning, if your cause is indeed just, and worthy, then I > don't see why the same view doesn't apply to possible copyright suits. Because I'm arguing from the position that modern copyright regime is, as a whole, just, and