On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
> > > data
> > > sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
> >
> > Lack of f
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free data
> > sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
>
> Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the archive?
I think if ther
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 06:49:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 08:19:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Certainly. But in no way should we be encouraging the fallacy that there
> > *must* be packaged free content before we will accept a consumer of said
> > content int
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it makes
> sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package declares a dep
> on 1.2 or later(!).
[...]
> Exactly. Thomas continues releasing beta releases for the upcomi
Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
- Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 08:19:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Certainly. But in no way should we be encouraging the fallacy that there
> *must* be packaged free content before we will accept a consumer of said
> content into the archive.
The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
> > the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
> > software, and the right to sue the author i
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
> > that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
>
> I disagree. I think an MP3 playe
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:03:46PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040710 14:27]:
> > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
> > packaging in main of appropriate content. That would be a waste of archive
> > resources.
>
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:26:08 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Maybe we
> should show some examples of trademark terms we like? Maybe we could
> even make the damn debian logo artwork into one?
I think that the Debian logo issue should really be worked out.
Having a Free OS with non-free logos is a sort of
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek
Branden> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would
>> be a conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid,
I meant civil law, sorry.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 23:31:04 +0200, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:01:32 -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >>Good point about warranty disc
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:01:32 -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
> >>the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
> >>sof
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> >A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
>> >ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service
>> >routines were very heavily used.
>>
>> That's interesting and true. But "a lot" is not "all".
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>>the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>>software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
>>test as written woul
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
> the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
> software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
> test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
>>suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
>>a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or m
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
> suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
> a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may not
> be removed in the
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
>>Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
>>everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
>>following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>>
>>The
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Josh Triplett said on Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700,:
>> * The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that
>> "Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.".
>^
>
>
> Choice of Law
>
>This license
MJ Ray wrote:
> Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
> into account a bit. I've a few comments...
Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
terms of software covered by the license, rather than the license itself.
> On 2004-07-09 22:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
> > that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I disagree. I think an MP3 player sho
Hello,
Upon completion of our 1 minute
registration form we will be able to
offer you 2.28 % on the re
-fi~nance of your mo r
t ga ge.
One of our Brokers will be in contact with you
shortly to answer
any questions you may have.
Registration Application:
http://www.searchrt.com/
Sincerely,
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:09:09 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> We should set a better example than those who overreach with their
> licenses and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for
> prohibition in copyright law.
>
> We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce.
Yes
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:54 +0200 Stefan Völkel wrote:
> My understanding:
> * All Data in a debian package (Source, Documentation, Art, ...)
> has to comply to the DFSG.
Correct: this will be more clearly stated by a new wording of the social
contract that has already been approve
* Branden Robinson:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licen
* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040710 14:27]:
> I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
> packaging in main of appropriate content. That would be a waste of archive
> resources.
>
> The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable b
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
> that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be allowed into main without
us trying to pretend that it's only there fo
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
> > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
> > to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its
> > removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bug
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
> > > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
> > > to move this package to non-free; t
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 01:38:51PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040710 03:49]:
> > The typical user of such an emulator is developing software, and using
> > the emulator to test it (in which case visualboy advance is no different
> > to SPIM or WINE).
> >
To summarise: yes, tell us where debian-legal goes wrong, but don't be
a sniper.
On 2004-07-10 08:07:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would
be
nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people
* Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040710 03:49]:
> The typical user of such an emulator is developing software, and using
> the emulator to test it (in which case visualboy advance is no different
> to SPIM or WINE).
>
> In my opinion, Debian contains sufficient tools to develop your own
> p
* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]:
> debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses
> to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its
> removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bugs. See the -legal
> discussion [0].
Sorry, but t
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as
> such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not,
> such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate
> with the
Josh Triplett said on Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700,:
> * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to
I'm using lynx to read /usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/common/qpl-license.html
There is 6.3. No 6c. Probably a problem with the html.
Oh. No. The html source says:-
``''
36 matches
Mail list logo
