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
* Adeodato Simó [Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:10:39 +0100]:
> So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in
> (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless
^
uhm, that's probably wrong, then? (After
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
>>Steve,
>>If I follow you correctly
>> A - writes program #49 and licenced under
>>GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>> B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
>>enhancement/change)
>> C
[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding
the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I
need big amounts of cluebat with this...]
* OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> > have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
> That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
>
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
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to
make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing
with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the "pet a cat"
licence.
Nick wrote:
> So the question I was trying to ask was "do we believe that t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:45:29AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> "craig" wrote:
> > > >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another
> > > >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software).
> > regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the
> > DFSG,
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).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:53:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> > By this, I'm not talking about enforcing this character code on the
>> > whole Debian system, but see to that: 1) Installing systems with
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
> Steve,
> If I follow you correctly
>A - writes program #49 and licenced under
> GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
> enhancement/change)
>C - determines their pa
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Lost attribution, Josh I think
Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
accusations of patent infringement re
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:53:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > By this, I'm not talking about enforcing this character code on the
> > whole Debian system, but see to that: 1) Installing systems with
> > UTF-8 is easier, also with locales not strictly in need of
> > this. UTF-8 as default is not
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > > consistent w
Find yerself a babe soon
http://puntilnemalionaceae.com/sse/
takke-0fff : puntilnemalionaceae.com/yik/
The owing enclave endothermic dichondra chromate .
She ericsson canal appeasable stallion se .
least appeasable salaam blew combinate miracle .
disputant dine burnside izvestia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26-01-2005 15:53, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>>2) See to that all Debian packages handles UTF-8 properly.
>
>
> This is a policy issue. Not all packages need to handle it, so this
> should be a reccommendation rather than a requirement. For example,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Harald Thingelstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most basic problems with use of UTF-8 (both in languages and
> standard libraries) should have been fixed now, and as I see it,
> it's time to head for easier integration of UTF-8, system-wide.
Agreed.
Stay Elongated All Night
http://www.aupd.com/p/coupon/famqq
Renounce your announcements uosb.com/b.php
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:49:32AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
"few"
> > requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> > lawsuits against a
Package: project
Severity: wishlist
Tags: l10n
Most basic problems with use of UTF-8 (both in languages and standard
libraries) should have been fixed now, and as I see it, it's time to
head for easier integration of UTF-8, system-wide.
By this, I'm not talking about enforcing this character cod
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
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
> requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether
> those lawsuits are related to the software or no
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > consistent with the goal of upholding the freedoms of users over that
> > software.
Selon Cristi Savu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a very simple question I'd like to ask, and I'm sorry to bother
> you for this: Does the Sarge ISO package get updated on a regular basis
> (let's say, monthly or something) ?
The DVD & CD iso images are updated weekly actualy:
http://www.debian.or
Hi,
please read the following pages, sarge=testing and sarge will become stable,
when it's ready... and unstable will always be called sid.
http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://www.debian.org/devel/testing
regards,
Holger
pgpAoclZFb7ju.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Dear gentlemen
I have a very simple question I'd like to ask, and
I'm sorry to bother you for this: Does the Sarge ISO package get updated on a
regular basis (let's say, monthly or something) ?
I'm asking this because I want to know whether is
there any point to download (again) this dist
27 matches
Mail list logo
