On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:32:30PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I never meant to imply that debian-legal was actually doing this, since I
> don't
> have any examples (in no small part because I haven't gone looking for them)
> but rather that the post I replied to was demonstrating the kind of ar
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-24 02:25]:
> Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above
> snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian
> Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the
> facts, given that even after n
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-19 15:10]:
> > Last time I suggested that -legal should engage in more active
> > arbitration with upstream
>
> Where precisely did you make this suggestion?
I had the discussion about the OLS in mind in which I asked whether
anyone had tried talkin
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 23:52]:
> Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
> review of licenses" suggested that "anyone can volunteer to
> summarize a particular discussion, post a summary to -legal to get
> the "ok" and then send it on" and that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your messages suggested that you'd review "after a few months"
> > mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good
> > opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned
> > out like you imagined?
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding. I thin
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:29:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained yet.
> I don't think that communicating what -legal is discussing is very
> interesting to most debian people. I am keeping notes for my own sake at
For what it's worth I'd
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:32:44 + Mark Brown wrote:
> > I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained
> > yet.
I'm not used to complain if a volunteer seems to not have enough time to
get a job done... (unless he/she has promised to do so, but this is not
the case now IIRC).
Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished -
Francesco Poli > So did I.
Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
mean the long licence summaries? What would they have don
MJ Ray wrote:
> Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had
> vanished -
> Francesco Poli > So did I.
>
> Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
> summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
> mean the long licence summari
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
> summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
They'd have helped me either keep up with what's going on without
actually looking at the list or at lea
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:12:58 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had
> vanished - Francesco Poli > So did I.
>
> Thanks for that
You are welcome! :)
> and the comments off-list. What would the period
> summaries have done to help you with the
Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be
everything to everyone and that's why they don't work?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e.
> program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its
> (DFSG-)freeness. [...
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences
> with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free
> or non-free software without too much effort.
I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences
> > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free
> > or non-free software without too much ef
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than
> > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses),
> > and ot
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than
> > > licenses with
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It still doesn't seem to me like the "programs are free or non-free, not
> licenses" bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we
> evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's
> intent or beliefs (except as embodied
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:24:42 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [...] I try to approach its copyright holders and
> > persuade them to change license.
> > In order to be more credible when I point out the issues that makes
> > a license non-free [...]
>
> Here's the flip.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just a case of multiple licenses, though; if someone asks "is
> this free?", we need to evaluate the licenses applying to the program--
> all of them, not just the most obvious ones. [...]
Fine, see it that way if you like. I don't. If people post
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:51:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Often licences have or do not have specifics in how they're being
> applied to software. In our favourite furry Firefox case, there is
> stuff in the package not under the same licence as the rest.
That's just a case of multiple licenses, t
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-26 03:29]:
> I think that http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ is a mistake which
> should be removed or drastically changed. It divides debian-legal and
> has been a gift to those who always seek to criticise contributors on
> more than one occasion. Can you
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-26 03:29]:
> > See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html
> I've reviewed your arguments in the link above and see what you're
> saying; nevertheless, I can the summ
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have given Frank Lichtenheld some comments in the past and
> he's worked them into the pages. I am increasingly of the
> opinion that those pages are broken conceptually, writing
> cast-iron judgements once and forever and tending towards a
> "Debian Free Soft
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
[snipped: although there are exceptions...]
I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find
a way to keep track of past license analyses.
At least
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
> [snipped: although there are exceptions...]
> I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find
> a way
On 24 Feb 2005 02:50:49 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
> > [snipped: although there are exceptions...]
> > I agree and must say (as I
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes
> their software DFSG-free. [...]
Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
in main and check the copyright file. That would be much better
advice, IMO. Actually, the
On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes
> > their software DFSG-free. [...]
>
> Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
> in main and check the copyright file
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll do this in the next day or so.
It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached).
I'll pass along whatever I learn.
--
G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GN
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happe
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any case, the attitude that "kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary
> thought" strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project
> went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our
> response
On 2004-07-12 15:53:45 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade or
suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from
-legal speak for themselves.
If there are that many, I guess a lot of these are either n
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo
> > You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
> > park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
> > suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
>
> We don't seem to fear the laughter of others when it comes to AMD64
> support.
Just a guess here
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > > browsers *ot
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I
suggested that -legal should en
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo
On 2004-07-14 21:19:33 +0100 Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, I encouraged summarizing and
documenting the findings of -legal about licenses [...]
Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
review of licenses" suggeste
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
>> park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
>> suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
>
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:25:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
> >> park for releasing without Mozilla at the mome
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happe
[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous
> as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.
Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragr
,--- Forwarded message (begin)
Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
From: Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Colin Watson
43 matches
Mail list logo
