On Wed, Jun 6, 2007 at 06:07:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Perhaps a more interesting example is xserver-xorg-core's inclusion of the
> GLX Public License, which includes:
>
> Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the
> exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Cou
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:20:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> ] > I thought choice-of-venue is non-free by default?
An example of a different MPL 1.1 derived choice-of-venue clause is
firebird2's:
This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to
the extent applica
Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 14:20:40 schrieb Anthony Towns:
>> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:07:52PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> > You could ask Anthony whether you're allowed to publish his reasons on
>> > -legal. That would do the project a great favor.
>>
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 14:20:40 schrieb Anthony Towns:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:07:52PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > You could ask Anthony whether you're allowed to publish his reasons on
> > -legal. That would do the project a great favor.
>
> You could just ask me directly you know...
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:08:31AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> That's true, as an ideal. In reality, you can't expect every DD or even
> maintainer to subscribe to -legal except when they've got a particular
> problem to discuss.
Sure, but you don't need or want that. All you need is an unbias
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:07:52PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> You could ask Anthony whether you're allowed to publish his reasons on
> -legal. That would do the project a great favor.
You could just ask me directly you know...
] > I thought choice-of-venue is non-free by default?
]
] Via Simo
Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 09:08:31 schrieb Frank Küster:
>> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> And a mail like
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624;msg=142;at
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 09:08:31 schrieb Frank Küster:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> And a mail like
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624;msg=142;att=0
> is not only not-helpful-at-all, it's real
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
>> it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to
>> individual software's licenes could be discusse
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
> > implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
> > loss at all.
> I think that Debian would very
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 23:08 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
> I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
> it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to
> individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those
> who actually set this
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
> implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
> loss at all.
I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whate
12 matches
Mail list logo
