On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:00:49PM -0500, selussos wrote:
We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments,
I do not open them.
You confuse me; you replied[1] to a previous message of mine[2] which
contained an attachment of identical type (a PGP/MIME digital
signature).
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:54:38PM -0500, selussos wrote:
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
want to say the same
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same
disposition as Apache
: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: X-Oz Technologies
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same
disposition as Apache
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004, selussos wrote:
We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of
attachments, I do not open them.
You're actually looking at a piece of mail that has a pgp signature.
May I suggest using an MUA that is standards compliant and can deal
with pgp/mime (eg. not
Branden Robinson wrote:
I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a
different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software
projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual
parts of the license; I know examples where those have been
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote:
I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software
enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have
been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other
X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote:
I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software
enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have
been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other
X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote:
Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal
list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the
OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all
concerns:
First, the
At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote:
Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal
list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the
OSI and I hope that that clarifies the
On 2004-03-03 02:16:45 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who
_reuses_
an existing and acceptable license?
The X-Oz is not directly any existing accepted licence, is it? -legal
members do ask these sort of questions
12 matches
Mail list logo
