Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, how about I just say, it's a great FAQ that is totally open and
> transparent and there are not a single ligament critique that could
> ever be leveled at it.
Why would you say that?
I certainly don't think the FAQ entry you presented is immune to
c
* Thibaut Paumard:
> He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated (which
> is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is unimportant and
> I shouldn't care.
I think this isn't that far from the truth, the GPL isn't usually
interpreted in a way that requires proper attri
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:45:59 pm Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > The provision that I must post changes does not restrict ones ability to
> > sell or give away the software, it simply imposes a constraint. This
> > constraint is in no
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:51:05 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> > I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see
> > why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete?
>
> In short, no
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:25:43 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for
> > > someone to *compel* De
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated
> (which is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is
> unimportant and I shouldn't care.
The copyright statement, if clearly false, AFAICT means that the
license statement is nul
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see
> why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete?
In short, no. The answer given is a complete and correct answer to the
question
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> The provision that I must post changes does not restrict ones ability to sell
> or give away the software, it simply imposes a constraint. This constraint is
> in no way different than the constrain imposed by the GPL that source cod
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:08:28 +0100 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
[...]
> He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated
> (which is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is
> unimportant and I shouldn't care.
>
> Now, should I? If yes, could you give me a couple of argument
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> You're taking it in the wrong order.
> The GPL doesn't forbid you to distribute the code because of the bloody
> murderer. The dissident and the desert island tests are about
> restrictions *inside* the license, related to some situations. Here, you
> just
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for
> > someone to *compel* Debian to accept a given license as "free".
>
> The question being asked is
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course,
> > > there is no explanation of how a "licenses
On Friday 29 February 2008 12:21:58 pm Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my tim
On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course,
> > there is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be
> > sent to some specific place" violates
On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives
> > the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is
> > final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it
On Friday 29 February 2008 05:29:19 am Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an
> > attempt to ti
Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt
> to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to deb
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt
> to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to debate
> and discuss the tes
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:05PM -0800, Eitan Isaacson wrote:
> >> 3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered
> >> part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to
> >> these tables a
Dear legal aware folks,
I have recently adopted [1]gimp-gap. While reviewing it, I noticed
that the copyright notice written on almost every file is inaccurate.
It reads
THE GIMP -- an image manipulation program
Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis.
Everything in there
2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, there
> is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be sent to
> some specific place" violates:
>
> 1. Free redistribution.
1. Free Redistribution: The lic
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives
> the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is
> final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it is always right
> (debatable?).
I can only say in response that
22 matches
Mail list logo