> From: joel.r...@gmail.com
> To: debian-user
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>>>[...]
>>
>>> For linux we all need to agree before we decide.
>>
>> Yeah, that"s a pita. It"s hard to change anything if everyone can
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>>[...]
>
>> For linux we all need to agree before we decide.
>
> Yeah, that's a pita. It's hard to change anything if everyone can veto.
That's sure indication that everything is getti
On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>> > On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>
>> Of course, nobody dislikes security. Making it neat and clear is another
>> question, and that"s why experiments are needed. Can we consider Linux and
>> GRSecurity as entities cooperating with
> On Wed 19/Jul/2017 23:14:35 +0200 Martin Read wrote:
>> On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> One my wonder why GRSecurity is not (optionally) included in Linux.
>>
>> For a variety of reasons relating to the personalities and opinions of the
>> people who would be involved - on both si
On Wed 19/Jul/2017 23:14:35 +0200 Martin Read wrote:
> On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> One my wonder why GRSecurity is not (optionally) included in Linux.
>
> For a variety of reasons relating to the personalities and opinions of the
> people who would be involved - on both sides -
On 19/07/17 12:17, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
One my wonder why GRSecurity is not (optionally) included in Linux.
For a variety of reasons relating to the personalities and opinions of
the people who would be involved - on both sides - in making it happen.
It should be noted that some people w
On Sun 16/Jul/2017 17:17:21 +0200 Martin Read wrote:
> On 16/07/17 12:47, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> May I ask, in passing, why Debian (for packages like apt, say) as well as
>> Linux
>> did not switch to GPLv3? Would such switch ease enforcement?
>
> Switching a project over from GPLv2-only to
Joel Rees wrote at 17:50 (PDT) on Sunday:
> The whole idea that they have to protect themselves from users of their
> so-called intellectual property is where we, as a society are failing to
> do the reality check.
This text above is very well said! The value that Debian has is that it
works very
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> There are salient discrepancies in copylefting collective work —as there are
> mismatches in working as a free software developer in a western economic
> model.
>
There are salient discrepancies in every licensing model, so-called
free/
> On Sat 15/Jul/2017 19:24:56 +0200 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > [...]
> > Finally, this is probably a good moment -- since this thread has erupted on
> > a Debian Mailing List -- to let everyone know that Conservancy also
> > organizes a GPL copyright aggregation project for Debian contributors as
>
On 16/07/17 12:47, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
May I ask, in passing, why Debian (for packages like apt, say) as well as Linux
did not switch to GPLv3? Would such switch ease enforcement?
Switching a project over from GPLv2-only to GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later
requires either (a) the consent of
There are salient discrepancies in copylefting collective work —as there are
mismatches in working as a free software developer in a western economic model.
Let me just say that this discussion, working out the legal details of the
problem, is very interesting. I guess that's how every inch of fr
Bruce, your analysis ignores the political forces that have allied to thwart
GPL enforcement efforts. If Conservancy did not face these anti-enforcement
politics regularly, Conservancy could and would spend more time working on
bringing more companies into compliance.
I hope you'll review my FOSD
13 matches
Mail list logo
