[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > > gnutoo and i believ
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 02:28:36 +0200 Denis wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free
> At the beginning I thought it was but then when I sent that mail I
> didn't read all the license
so you think it is accep
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400
bill-auger wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > may we return to the original topic?
>
> ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap
>
> so far:
>
> gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-fre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:48:00 -0400 Ruben wrote:
> Also I still maintain that beneath-a-steel-sky and such are under a
> (badly written) free license.
which brings us back to where we were last week - it seems that the license has
been fully reviewed, and all opinions have been expressed
on that
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 05:05:04 -0400 Richard wrote:
> I don't know what this license says, but this "precedent" argument is
> not the right way to think about these issues. If a decision is
> clearly right, we don't need to cite a precedent for it,
this post shows the dubious section of the license
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has previously
> es
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 20:34:25 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> if that is the path forward, let us begin
so to begin that debate, i need only to quote my previous message
> gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free
and add that, now jason concurs: its words, however confusing, ma
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:03:21 -0700 Jason wrote:
> Is it time to revisit the established precedent for the SIL Open Font
> License?
i dont know - that is exactly where the discussion left off - RMS suggested
that; and AFAIK RMS is the one who made the previous determination, and only
RMS could make
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400
bill-auger wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > may we return to the original topic?
>
> ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap
>
> so far:
>
> gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-f
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> may we return to the original topic?
ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap
so far:
gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free
ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has pre
10 matches
Mail list logo
