On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So t
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
The problem you are going to end up with for this, though, is that there is
no authoritative En
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> David Nusinow writes:
>
>>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in
>>the
>>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
>>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing
>>to
>>fear fr
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer
>using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he
Don Armstrong wrote:
> A slightly more appropriate patent clause is the one that is present
> in the current version of the Apache Source License v2.0. [The
> original version was similar to the RPSL, but ASF saw the light, so to
> speak, and changed it to something that is (IMO) DFSG Free.]
>
>
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
>>> can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
>>> find the subthread you are refer
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Walter Landry wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm
aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the
softwa
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm
> >>aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the
> >>software, so perhaps I should have sai
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does the Department of Transportation need to make stoplight software
> > generally available?
> While I do think government software should always be Free Software and
> distributed to the public, I would not really classify that case as
> "direct in
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 09:56:12AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later
> >>>time to the change to anoth
Sven Luther wrote:
> I give this another try. The copyright file found at :
>
>
> http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?rev=530
>
> Now reads :
>
> ...
> The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License
> version 1.0 (inclu
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later
>>>time to the change to another licence altogether, maybe one of the
>>>upcoming CECILL family.
>>
>>I
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about something vaguely like:
"""
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, w
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > > Sv
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So this solves most of the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > >
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > >
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>How about something vaguely like:
> >>
> >>"""
> >>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> >>direct use by another party, without actually distri
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
> > trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
>
> So we should be willing to give up more of the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:28:41AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> > >[...]
> > As s
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
> trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
So we should be willing to give up more of the freedom that we now
need in order to have a work in Debian?
> current in
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> >[...]
> As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
> we do thi
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:05:45AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It's fairly easy to say "we're debating the QPL; this may affect these
> packages ...", but it's very hard to do the same for a specific restriction,
> which is probably what you're really looking for. The best that could be
> hoped
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:53:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >
> > >But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
> > >*does* have a copyr
24 matches
Mail list logo
