On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:54:05PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Il 07/08/19 14:29, Zenaan Harkness ha scritto:
>
> > Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a
> > new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the
> > exist
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:23:37PM +0200, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> * On 8/7/19 9:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > In the interests of having Veracrypt be distributable by Debian,
> > all Veracrypt code must be licensed accordingly.
> >
> > This can be done by public
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:26:35PM +0200, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> * On 8/7/19 12:58 PM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> > Agreed. There is no way to obtain tacit permission for anything except
> > what the copyright holder has already declared (except for copyright
> > expiration, but that takes
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:58:16PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 07/08/19 12:23, Mihai Moldovan ha scritto:
> >> - include in the announcement that any party objecting must contact
> >>the developers at BLAH (email list address, or list of developer
> >>email addresses)
My other email addy is still banned for life from all debian lists it
seems, so forwarding the below as it may be of interest to some.
Regards,
Zenaan
- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness -
From: Zenaan Harkness
To: ste...@mxlinux.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 22:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:02:40AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the
hostile
response from some of the Debian
Can you guys on d-l please comment. I think CCing Dwayne would be a
suitable thing too.
Thanks
Zenaan
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 14:22, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask on, but what's the
copyright/license status of the Debian Constitution?
Here is the relevant replies on debian-user.
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 04:55, Travis Crump wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Dwayne C. Litzenberger writes:
I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask on, but what's the
copyright/license status of the Debian Constitution?
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:42, Josh Triplett wrote:
Consider this sentence from the GNU Project's Free Software Definition:
It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have
distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a
copy of it, you must send one.
Assumption: There will forever be different definitions of free.
Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose
FSF Free as well as DFSG Free (and perhaps OSI) as the set of
packages they wish to install?
tia
zenaan
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 07:57, Michael Poole wrote:
Zenaan Harkness writes:
Assumption: There will forever be different definitions of free.
Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose
FSF Free as well as DFSG Free (and perhaps OSI) as the set of
packages
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:40, Joe Moore wrote:
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the Autocrat
Test
or the Dictator Test? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
holder
does not get to make up his or her
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 08:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
half-formed in my head for a little
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the hostile
response from some of the Debian kernel maintainers and the dead silence
from upstream.
From memory, there's someone on lkml who has a list of the non-free
bits of
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:19:26PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I believe you are mistaken. I can make that combination, but the
result is not distributable.
If you can show me how making such copies is permitted, I'd be very
On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 11:56, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:56:23 -0300, Humberto Massa said:
It's the same case as Windows NDIS drivers loading on linux. They
were
created in a different environment, and would exist as they are even
if
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:00, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead
will use the X-Oz license.
It's like ... too subtle. You know?
zen
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 08:04, MJ Ray wrote:
The GPL on the CD is software.
Absolutely, unequivocally, no debate on this one, right?
Intention of Bruce Perens perhaps, intention of many others perhaps.
I guess that gives anyone the right to claim this as uncontested fact.
I think it's useful to
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 20:41, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Apple decides to actively enforce its patent, you should upgrade
the severity to serious if the license available for general use is
not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
19 matches
Mail list logo
