"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
"When A says X, an
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...
> Your objection, in essence seems to be
> "We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
> is true."
> It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable,
On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
On 8/31/06, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said:
> So they've been doing this for 2 years, and have included
> non-DFSG-free cdrtools in main while doing so? They even shipped Sarge
> with this known non-DFSG-free package in main?
>
> IMHO cdrtoo
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said:
> On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Markus Laire writes:
> >>I used to believe that Debian only included legal, DFSG-free software
> >>in main, but "cdrtools" fiasco seems to prove that I was wrong.
> >
> >Ever since the issue i
Markus Laire writes:
>On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In the end, those same maintainers
>> have given up on that as a lost cause and instead have started work on
>> a free cdrtools fork that will ship in etch instead of cdrtools.
>
>Do you have any link/source to support
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
> interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this instead of relying
on mailing lists posts
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
>I have somewhat similar feelings after I found out that the
>"cdrtools"-package[1] included in Debian isn't DFSG-free, but is still
>included in main.
>
>(Even worse, its license might even be illegal because it's GPLv2 +
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [-devel trimmed]
>
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> > mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> > broadcom with this a
Markus Laire writes:
>On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
>> choosing Debian, because it does not follow my definition of freedom.
>> I would like to urge to change the Social Contract to be clarified
>> t
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingList
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
>
> Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
> the FSF
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is still
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
> liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
> sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
in
15 matches
Mail list logo
