On 2004-07-02 22:28:54 +0100 Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to
choose
"FSF Free" as well as "DFSG Free" (and perhaps "OSI") as the set of
packages they wish to install?
Add to apt and friends some way to categorise pac
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:57:57 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
>>The policy work involves the actual identification of freeness.
>>DFSG-free is a (I believe strict) subset of OSI-free, and probably a
>>superset of FSF-free.
>
> I don't think that DFSG-free is a superset of FSF-fre
Dis(e0014edbee)con(a9fb985bb8)tinue
n0RkJ.1curp.Znps8/ql5DR11ROIx/MYcqN0t7abl06JQMK/
One of the very best rules of conversation is to never, say anything which any of the company wish had been left unsaid.,Happiness is like a sunbeam, which the least shadow intercepts, while adversity is often
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 07:57, Michael Poole wrote:
> Zenaan Harkness writes:
>
> > Assumption: There will forever be different definitions of free.
> >
> > Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose
> > "FSF Free" as well as "DFSG Free" (and perhaps "OSI") as the set o
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:57:57 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> The policy work involves the actual identification of freeness.
> DFSG-free is a (I believe strict) subset of OSI-free, and probably a
> superset of FSF-free.
I don't think that DFSG-free is a superset of FSF-free.
For non-programs there i
Zenaan Harkness writes:
> Assumption: There will forever be different definitions of free.
>
> Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose
> "FSF Free" as well as "DFSG Free" (and perhaps "OSI") as the set of
> packages they wish to install?
What would be the specific
Assumption: There will forever be different definitions of free.
Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose
"FSF Free" as well as "DFSG Free" (and perhaps "OSI") as the set of
packages they wish to install?
tia
zenaan
Hello,
How about this:
Both options don't require you to change anything about the rest of the
software you distribute. The problem is solved if you reply, pick an
option and give permission to use the software and future version under
the license of choice.
First option: Dual licensing under th
Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
> intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
> intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
> in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
>> > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
>> > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
>> > it's not free, so I do
>What exactly is this trying to require? I can see several things:
>
>1) You may not change the license on this code. This is a no-op;
> I have no standing to do that.
>
>2) You may not bring legal action to stop others' use of this code.
> For example, you may not sue for patent infringement.
Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about how best to
re-word it to reflect their intentions.
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Why not just point him at the smallest possible BSD-style license:
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain th
13 matches
Mail list logo
