Announcing kernel-handbook project

[This message is cross-posted to multiple mailing lists for announcement purposes only. Please edit the address list before replying! Suggested address for followups is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, In an attempt to improve the situation with Debian kernel documentation I have recently initiated t

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for not honoring $DEBEMAIL) Err, it does? Hamish See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324341 . It now won

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for > not honoring > $DEBEMAIL) Err, it does? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:47:34PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Package name: gaim-slashexec > Version : x.y.z ^ > Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL

Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

owner 327425 ! thanks Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Package name: gaim-slashexec Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Lawler

Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Package name: gaim-slashexec Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Lawler Daniel 'datallah' Atallah URL :

Processed: Re: Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 327417 glibc Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore. Bug reassigned from package `general' to `glibc'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assista

Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

reassign 327417 glibc thanks On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:28:16AM +0200, Thomas Becker wrote: > Package: general > Severity: important > The error message is: > Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to > dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so) > Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]:

Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.

Package: general Severity: important The error message is: Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so) Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6: symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: >> What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that >> can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be >> sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. > > There are the DFSG f

Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing

On 9/9/05, Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing > etch/security-updates main contrib non-free > > deb-src > http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing > etch/security-updates main contrib non-free > > Could I replace 'etch

Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing

On 9/9/05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Security support for testingThe Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the beginning of full security support for Debian's testing distribution. This is great news, and thank you! [...] We also invite you to add the following lines to

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, > >> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the use

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > 9. MISCELLANEOUS. > > > Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract > > shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we > >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to >> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to >> what the license imposes on or requires from users. > > What's the point in us worrying a

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: > >> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and >> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary >> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an >> insuran

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, >> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only >> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which >> isn't very realistic. > > No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no > reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* o

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big > evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and > suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry > greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: --cut-- > > That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned > > exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author > > thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something > > we consider at all

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing >>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is >>> unlikely to deter

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew Garrett writes: > >> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with > >> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. > > > > This seems remarkably s

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: >> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with >> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. > > This seems remarkably similar to the argument "The user has carte > blanche to exercise DFSG

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing >> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is >> unlikely to deter them. > > The point is that the cost *for me* of d

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to >>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. >> >> You seem to assert that licenses cannot

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing >> against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? > The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the > fact that the licensor

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with >>> fivolous lawsuits. >> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of la

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Matthew Garrett writes: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we >>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference >>> that choice of ve

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as > discrimination against licensors without money? DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the >> impression that it was generally accepted. > > I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with >> fivolous lawsuits. > > No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of > jurisdiction, no harassment results. Eh?

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear > >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" > >> can be meaningfully described as a

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we > >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The o

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even > if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal > or something such ? Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum. -- Henning Mak

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to >>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. >> You seem to assert th

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we > >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to >> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. > > You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the > licens

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentiall

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the > >> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to disc

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids > > some restrictions present in the CDDL. > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable > license is free, the

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Matthew> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true Matthew> regardless of license conditions. Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that *geography* necessarily discriminate

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids > > some restrictions present in the CDDL. > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable > license is f

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we > ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree *in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitra

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some >> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons". > Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an abili

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the >> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against >> them? > > Debian has always been full of soft

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some > of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons". Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft bec

Re: Bug#254248: What are the differences between cdebootstrap and debootstrap?

Scripsit Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was a bit surprised to see a bug like 254248 being tagged as won't > fix. There are other strange wontfix tags for cdebootstrap, including a handful of quite reasonably looking translation updates. Significantly, all of those wontfix tags were added

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear > >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" > >> can be meaningfully described a

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the > enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against > them? YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee; the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate agains

info tourisme Unsubscription

The removal of the email address: debian-devel@lists.debian.org >From the mailing list: info tourisme is all set. Date of this removal: Fri Sep 9 10:26:04 2005 Please save this email message for future reference. ---

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" >> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be >> discriminated against. If ev

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email *removal* for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL: (C

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email *removal* for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL: (C

New message

Title: E-mail message content Well you look up now and we WON 6 GAMES IN A ROW! Who does it better than us? And now here we are with our best play of the week here for you to get an easy win! With as HOT as we have been how can you let yourself stay away from this? We have an e

Welcome to info tourisme

The subscription of the email address: debian-devel@lists.debian.org To the mailing list: info tourisme is all set. Thanks for subscribing! Date of this subscription: Fri Sep 9 09:25:23 2005 Please save this email message for future reference. --

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > > Henning Makholm writes: > > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear > > > at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" >

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear > at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" > can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be > discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it > meaningfull to dis

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Henning Makholm writes: > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at > > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be > > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that

info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation

This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email list subscription for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this subscription, please follow the below URL:

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm writes: > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated > against. Why do you think that a copyright ow

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > 9. MISCELLANEOUS. > Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract > shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a juri

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Henning Makholm writes: >>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear >>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" >>> can be m

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm writes: >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" >> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be >> discrimina

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm writes: > Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it >> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear > at the the author

Re: net-tools maintenance status

On 9/9/05, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > Eh, bump, please? > > http://net-tools.berlios.de > Planned: new release 1.65 which contains all the debian patches. Use of some > netdev features. Great, but when?

subscribe

subscribe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: net-tools maintenance status

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > Eh, bump, please? http://net-tools.berlios.de Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free > > > it's up to you explaining why. > > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. Ho

Bug#326429: Info received (was Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker)

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> arthur de j

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free > > it's up to you explaining why. > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it > seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I am re

Re: Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:47 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Arthur de Jong] > > I'm not sure if I need some statement on the copyrights on the > > generated html files. The css file that is just copied has a BSD > > license. > > Generally, output from a program is not considered to be copyrighted

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it > seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a f

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050909 10:01]: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a "hint". Ask > > debian-release to do this: > the page on excuses was speaking of an "hint"... > what is it ? > choice 1)

Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a "hint". Ask > debian-release to do this: the page on excuses was speaking of an "hint"... what is it ? choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] choice 2) a proc

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue > > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. > > > > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in > | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer > | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such > | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Se

Re: a desperate request for licence metadata

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I wrote: >> >> In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright >> >> owner. >> > >> > Thomas Bushnell writes:

Re: net-tools maintenance status

On 8/11/05, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/11/05, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > > Just one more question: what happened to my original emails? > > > > I read them. Most likely I saved the wr

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue > > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. > > Could you explain why D