On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:13:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > We just tried getting the mailing list archived on master but were
> > told that this was a silly idea.
>
> That's because I didn't notice that the list is actually spi-trademark at
> the SPI list server, which provides the functiona
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:01:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, that argument can wait until someone actually tries to ship a
> package maintainer or author from the Debian mirror network.
>
> If you figure that out, please let me know before you go public with it
> -- I'd like to have the
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
> isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than
> documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an absurd
> notion).
>
> What's up
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Nick Bannon wrote:
> It has been started - e.g. Brian T Sniffen's suggested list of
> necessary documentation freedoms, as incorporated into the GFDL
> position statement that the Project Secretary has been assembling:
I had always assumed those to be akin to RMS's 4 freedoms
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:30:20 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Simon Law:
>> That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But that
>> doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
>> please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
> To me the
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:1 6:28 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> MJ Ray:
>> I suggest you review some of the messages recently sent to
>> debian-legal,
> I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
> referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
>> including the one
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 03:00:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If we want to exclude more things from the DFSG, we need to write up a
> proposal to modify the social contract appropriately and extend
> another set of guidelines to apply to it. To this point, no one has
> taken up the gauntlet and
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 11:24:26AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > I don't see how that follows, unless you fail to distinguish between
> > Debian-the-project and Debian-the-distribution.
> >
>
> I do. Debian the project only exists for the sake o
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see how that follows, unless you fail to distinguish between
> Debian-the-project and Debian-the-distribution.
>
I do. Debian the project only exists for the sake of the Debian
distribution. SPI is for all the fiddly legal bits.
--
Jaldhar
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:02:59AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > > Simon Law:
> > >
> > > > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > > > that does
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.
>
> I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work
> than a word.
>
Semiotically a logo is (or should be if the marketing
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > Simon Law:
> >
> > > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> > > please read the debi
ＷＡＫＷＡＫウイルス検知システムにより、このメールにウイルスが
感染していることが検出されましたので、ウイルスを駆除しましたが、
一部のファイルが駆除不可能なウイルスに感染していましたので、
該当ファイルを削除して、メールをお届けいたしました。
(削除されたファイルは、DELETED#.txtに置換えました。)
送信者 : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
感染ファイル名：cdme.bat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ご注意]
・メールの内容につきましては、ＷＡＫＷＡＫにて確認することが
出来ませんので、上記「送信者」様へお問い合わせ下さい。
・「送信者」様に
ALERT!This e-mail, in its original form, contained one or more attached files that were infected with a virus, worm, or other type of security threat. This e-mail was sent from a Road Runner IP address. As part of our continuing initiative to stop the spread of malicious viruses, Road Runner scans
ＷＡＫＷＡＫウイルス検知システムにより、このメールにウイルスが
感染していることが検出されましたので、ウイルスを駆除しましたが、
一部のファイルが駆除不可能なウイルスに感染していましたので、
該当ファイルを削除して、メールをお届けいたしました。
(削除されたファイルは、DELETED#.txtに置換えました。)
送信者 : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
感染ファイル名：Installation7.exe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ご注意]
・メールの内容につきましては、ＷＡＫＷＡＫにて確認することが
出来ませんので、上記「送信者」様へお問い合わせ下さい。
ＷＡＫＷＡＫウイルス検知システムにより、このメールにウイルスが
感染していることが検出されましたので、ウイルスを駆除しましたが、
一部のファイルが駆除不可能なウイルスに感染していましたので、
該当ファイルを削除して、メールをお届けいたしました。
(削除されたファイルは、DELETED#.txtに置換えました。)
送信者 : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
感染ファイル名：pack3695.exe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ご注意]
・メールの内容につきましては、ＷＡＫＷＡＫにて確認することが
出来ませんので、上記「送信者」様へお問い合わせ下さい。
・「送信
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> MJ Ray:
>> Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were written to apply to
>> everything in debian
>
> This means that we cannot include stuff like software licenses in
> Debian, which in turn means that we cannot really distributed Debian
> itself.
Copy
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:16:28AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > including the one where Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were
> > written to apply to everything in debian
>
> Yeah, I saw that one. This means that we cannot include stuff like
> software licenses in Debian, which in turn mea
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:02:18PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > In any case, the logo violates DFSG 8, so that trumps the
> > > affordance given by DFSG 4. If I extracted it from Debian and used it
> > > to refer to something else, I would be disallowed from modifying it.
> >
> > Again, that's
On 2003-10-07 08:16:28 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
It is very easy to write "I don't agree" but it is not an argument. I
suggest you explain your reasons for not using this no
MJ Ray:
> I suggest you review some of the messages recently sent to
> debian-legal,
I don't read debian-legal, but I've read some of the messages
referenced from DWN. I don't agree.
> including the one where Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were
> written to apply to everything in debian
Y
On 2003-10-07 06:30:20 +0100 Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than
documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an
absurd
notion).
I suggest
debian-project 您好：
很高兴认识您，这是一封电影网站的介绍信件
买碟贵，而且费时、费力。最新大片不间断更新，想看就下载
保证满足您追求新鲜电影的欲望。充实您的业余时间，来
酷兔影视： http://www.cooto.com 看看吧。
现在的网络电影几乎已经找不到免费的了，泡论坛没有3、5个月
是没法下载电影的。为了保证付费会员的高速下载，我们仅收取
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> Simon Law:
>
> > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> > please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
>
> To me the argument
Simon Law:
> That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But
> that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
> please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype
isn't software, and can'
25 matches
Mail list logo
