On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:12:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the
> credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the
> project as a whole.
Yes, arguments such as "Branden Robinson should not be taken into a
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of
> discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct).
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
>> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
>
> And in order to do so, you're labelling e
> > But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
> > themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
> > like you did.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No, it doesn't. GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the pro
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> And my changes do specify a version number.
Hmm. It comes down to compatibility again. This isn't immediately
clear to me either way from reading the license; instead of trying
to interpret, I'm going to punt the question.
[
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:30 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the
> > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's
> > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
>> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
>> you might convince me that they are i
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
>> >specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
>> >"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
>> >conditions either of
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> > and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
> > you might con
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
> you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of
> those is an axioma
> >Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> >specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
> >"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
> >conditions either of that version or of any later version publishe
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in
> > reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate.
>
> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
> they are and where I
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
>> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
>> > terms might be proprietary.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
>> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
>> > terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
>> > just a possible one -- I
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
> > terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
> >
> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
> > terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
> > just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
> > o
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
> standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental
> difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"(B
$B!!(B
$B!!K\F|$N(B[$B$a!<$k$^$,$N([EMAIL
PROTECTED](B]$B$O!]!Z=PMh$k!&$G$-$k!<#2#0:P0J>e$NCK=w$J$i=PMh$k![(B
$B!!(B
$B!!:#$NG:$_$O!&!&!&[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|1_$G2r7h=PMh$k!*L\E*$K
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > �"surprising modifications"?
>
> Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which
> he didn't expect.
I think you're being insufficiently imaginative about build
BRIT Consulting E Logistica LTDA
Marketing Division
Avenida Conselheiro Nebias
n 340, group 64 vila Mathias
Santos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hoarfrost the distance and the river all began to sparkle in the her and at last succeeded in making them believe her Her first from behind a clump of trees ne
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:25:18AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
> >> your patch to it P(A). Then t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
>> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> >> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
>
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Section 9.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
>> your patch to it P(A). Then there's the version the initial developer
>> releases, B=A+P(A). He releases tha
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:58:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
> >> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
>
You've heard about the hype
Save on all your RX Medication directly from our FDA-approved manufacturers
Save up to 82% on your RX drugs
Goto rx-factory.com in your address bar
No more notifications rx-factory.com/u
Hattie Carney
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
>> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
>> >sabotage the work of -legal.
>>
>> Simple question: what do you thin
27 matches
Mail list logo
