[ If you're being impatient about resolving this, please see the bottom ]
[ of the email for an imporant bit of information... ]
[ snip ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
>
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
>> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many "binaries" where the
>> lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
>> layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:28:12AM +0430, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Legally speaking, you're right. Now, on more practical grounds, I do
> > not think that the NetBSD Foundation threatened to sue us.
> I didn't say they did. They did identify
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:09:37PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> does anybody know what is going to happen with regard to LPPL-1.3, and
> in which timeline? The latest mails I found were
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00206.html
> (a new draft)
>
> and two an
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:28:12AM +0430, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500,
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 126 lines which said:
>
> > Debian either needs a trademark license from the NetBSD
[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> [ Adding -legal to the Cc; it may become inappropriate for -devel, at ]
> [ some point, in which case folks should remove the -devel Cc. The -bsd ]
> [ Cc should probably remain no matter what,
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> | The problem is that a Debian package has not the right to modify
> | automaticaly things under the /etc dir. That means that murasaki
> | itself is not allowed to write anything in /etc/murasaki/*.
[...]
> | -From the Debian policy :
> | "Note that
8 matches
Mail list logo
