On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 01:22, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit
> for
> writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told
> that
> they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals o
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
> invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them
> if
> they are truthful?
The cause is the non-freeness; one symptom of the non-
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> No, you wouldn't. There seem to me to be plenty of ways to have an XML
> format for music that would be plausibly editable. Think scores and things.
Works great for some types of music, but other types is routinely put
through a lot of filters
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
> > it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person,
> > group, or field of endeavor, then it is free.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> That
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jonathan Fine wrote:
>
>> Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
>> guideline does not apply in this situation.
>
> I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
> it does not discriminate t
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
> guideline does not apply in this situation.
I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person,
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
> that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we
> allow them if they are truthful?
Eek. "Truthful" is hard to define usefully here, and for some state
Jonathan Fine said:
> The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
> are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
>
> I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
> non-discrimination.
>
> Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
> guideline does n
Scripsit Yong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Yong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > One of the plugins, arguably the only one that most people will be
> > > interested, is binary only.
> > This will prevent the server itself from being in main - but it can
Scripsit Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Suppose the proposed LPPL discrimination is allowed. How
> then can discrimination such as:
>If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
>may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
>software.
> be resisted?
It cannot
The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
non-discrimination.
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not apply in this situation.
Supp
11 matches
Mail list logo
