Hey there,
You still have an open invite from NAZAR MOHAMMED MAFAZ to join the
Scour.com Search community!
Scour is a Social Search engine made better by a community of users just
like you.
Why use Scour?
1. Search Google, Yahoo and Bing on one page.
2. Get real-time search results from Digg and
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...]
>
> Noted... though, my mail client handles such things.
You appear to be using KMail. You should use the “reply to list”
feature, which
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg writes:
>>
>> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
>> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
>> > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you every
On Monday 04 January 2010 11:33:15 am Walter Landry wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> >> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
> >> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
> >>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 03:07:23PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
> it is getting us away from the original thread topic.
> How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
> both acceptable and
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:16:43 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
> > lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
> > and to reply to...]
>
> T
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
>> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
>> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
>> and to reply to...]
>
> The archive looks fine [1],
The official a
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
>>both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
>>cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
>
> As explained, t
Nicolas Alvarez writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
>> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
>> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
>
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get con
nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
>How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
>both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
>cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
As explained, the license does not really ma
mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
>The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
>discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
The usual argument of the DFSG revisionists is that everything is a
restriction or a discrimination, so it's not really helpful.
--
MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
it is getting u
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
>
> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
> > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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 d
Sean Kellogg writes:
> You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
> are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
> DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
> need :)
The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG
On Monday 04 January 2010 06:36:26 am Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony W. Youngman writes:
>
> > In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
> > writes
> >>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> >>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considerin
On Monday 04 January 2010 04:31:53 am MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such.
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
> In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
> writes
>>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
>>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
>>thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
writes
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
Actually, I believe choice-of-venue
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
>
> The problem with this line of argument is that i
20 matches
Mail list logo
