On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:49 -0500 Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
the not-on-legal part of the
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and
discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to
read debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged from
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism.
It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as
noise or interesting discussions, depending on your point of view,
mood, and temperature... but calling it masturbation is a bit rude,
Quoting Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
You must ensure that all recipients of the
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
it non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking
On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:58:41 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged.
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
Based on what has
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
There's disagreement over that.
Based on what has been stated and on
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I think a bug should be filed immediately...
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
not-on-legal part
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
issues.
Have you had a chance to outline this
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception)
* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
*
13 matches
Mail list logo
