On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 12:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know what the dependencies are, or if there are any dependencies
> that would prevent [the Helix Player] from being in main. Thomas, is enough
> of the helix
> player code GPL'd that we can include it in main, regardless of what we
>
Hello all,
Some days ago I sent an email to the upstream author of httping (a GPL
ping tool for HTTP request using OpenSSL) and I got this reply by him
today.
I got the package rejected from ftpmaster some time ago, that's way I
wanted to explain a little bit all the GPL vs OpenSSL license issues
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:15:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Note, of course, that you only need to release the source to the work(s)
> derived from a work under this license, which may not be everything
> running on the kiosk. (Of course, you _should_, but you are not
> _required_ to.)
... u
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>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 anot
So, this is a side-note about the Helix Player, not fully concerned with the
RPSL per se.
As I understand it, the Helix player (client side) has recently been
dual-licensed under the GPL.
There doesn't appear to be any way that the dual-licensing prevents users
from exercising freedoms protected
Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >> Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Let me get this straight. The f
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Triplett writes:
>>>
With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
interpretation, and pointing out tha
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2004, at 17:00, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> * Use, modification, or distribution by parties that wish to bring
>> patent lawsuits against us.
>
> If you want this to be a defensive-only clause, I think we (-legal) are
> ok with that. We're generally less-ok with i
Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * What do you want to prohibit?
>
> You'll need to read the license for that. However, tangible differences
> between RPSL and GPL are noted below:
>
> * License-incompatible forking. Our business model is predicated on
> dual-licensing of the source
* Walter Landry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040806 14:10]:
> If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal,
> then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has
> happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care
> about such issues. If they care, th
On Aug 4, 2004, at 17:00, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Brandon,
[You sent this to a public mailing list, debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
so I assume you want replies from people other than Branden.]
The process as it exists now is not at all unlike the IETF working
group
process. The main differ
GET your U N IVE RSI T Y D I PL0M A
Do you want a prosperous future, increased
earning powermore money and the respect of all?
Cal1 this number: 206 -424- 1596 (anytime)
There are no required tests, class e s, books, or
interviews!
Get a B a chelors, Masters, M BA, and D o ctorate
(
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Josh Triplett writes:
> >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
> >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
> >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
> >
> > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the
> > interpretat
AUTOSVAR:
Vi har den 22/5-04 fået ny e-mail adresse, som kan findes på bagsiden af
Aktivitetskalenderen for Lyne Sogn.
Du må derfor sende din mail igen, denne gang på vor nye adresse.
mvh. Gunnar Schmidt
15 matches
Mail list logo
