"Ryan Finnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail,
> which is wholly non-free.
Can it perform its function in the absence of qmail? Perhaps in the
presence of another MTA which is free?
> Even if the license is clean, does this make th
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:04:28PM -0700, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
> help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
>
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
itself considers it "open source",
On Wed, 2006-27-09 at 09:30 +1000, Nic Suzor wrote:
> One thing that I am getting from Mia's argument is that CC is having
> difficulty actually identifying people who would benefit from a parallel
> distribution clause. She has stated that she is not aware of a
> substantial segment of developers
Evan Prodromou [Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:03:28AM -0400]:
> Most importantly, who cares? Whether or not there's a conspiracy, the
> same task is needed: to make the case to the public, on cc-licenses and
> elsewhere, that rigid anti-DRM clauses inhibit freedom and and that
> parallel distribution at a
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:15:47 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> My guess is that Mia's response is a political one. Their
> international affiliates have opposed additional parallel distribution
> language; we've said that the language in the 3.0 draft may be enough
> to allow parallel distribution any
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:31:21 +0200 (MEST) Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
[> Francesco Poli wrote]
> > Maybe another person who recommends the GPL could be useful to add
> > "pressure" to adopt a DFSG-free licensing scheme... I don't know...
> Neither do I, but if I manage to change Sun's opinion, I
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you talking about this license?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
As far as I know, yes.
> It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
> relevant section from CC Scotland:
>
> 2.2 However,
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base
> > CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
> > parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
>
> 'Cause they'r
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
> > not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
> > lead starts arguing CC's point in public.
>
> What "poin
On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
> not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
> lead starts arguing CC's point in public.
What "point" is that?
You're simply wrong on this, and if you g
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> >
OK, another stab at this beast!
I've been in contact with Mark Delany, the Yahoo! engineer that wrote the
draft and administrates the DomainKeys SourceForge project. HINAL though,
AFAIK.
On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:41, Joe Smith took the opportunity to say:
> On 6/17/06, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, th
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have no documentation on how parallel distribution is absolutely
> necessary to satisfy the DFSG, nor do we have much of a mechanism short
> of a GR to determine if this is the consensus of Debian as a whole.
We have documentation, but not a clear int
Hi,
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:21:18 +1000 Nic Suzor wrote:
>
>> Eric Lavarde - Debian [Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:52:43PM +0200]:
>> > Hello again,
>> >
>> > Last tentative: what's wrong with my request that I don't get _any_
>> > answer?
>>
>> You did get an answer - check message from Joe Smith [Thu
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> author(s) place no restrictions on this scri
17 matches
Mail list logo
