[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe your reasoning is faulty, because it is based on incomplete
> >
ot be
recommending as a best practice licensing provisions which are legally void
significant jurisdictions like the United States.)
(Why isn't this in -legal? Followups set.)
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>#1/1
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc/msg/0946381
Courtesy of Groklaw:
Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered
to pay the FSF's court costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day.
--
3.fsf.org/process-definition
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/GPL_v3_Launch_Comments
--
G. Branden Robinson
Debian Project Leader
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.debian.org/~branden/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
[2] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
[3] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
--
G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he'll
Debian GNU/Linux |
being -- in my
view -- perfectly respectful of the upstream promulgators of the licenses,
is a good reflection on debian-legal and by extension the entire project.
Good work. Don't let the -legal haters get you down.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really b
release?
Are these things really more important to us than freedom?
[1] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/signify
--
G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who
Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves
[EMAIL PROTECT
ry Colors_[1].
[1] http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/primary_colors.htm
--
G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics.
http://peopl
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of
>
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of
>
is interested in reviewing the document please contact me?
> I'll send you the document for a quick review.
Did anyone get in touch with you about this?
--
G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine
Debian GNU/Linux |where religio
mbered by actively enforced software patents
We don't generally seek affirmative evidence that these are the case before
accepting something into main. We simply may decide to remove a package
from main if either of them prove to be false.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any m
Package: kaquarium
Version: 1.0-beta-3
Severity: serious
Justification: violation of Debian Policy 2.2.1
As noted on debian-legal on 20 August by Nathanael Nerode, kaquarium
appears to contain non-DFSG-free images files (some of the same ones as
shermans-aquarium).
It is unclear to me whether the
Package: shermans-aquarium
Version: 2.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: violates section 2.2.1 of Debian Policy
As noted on debian-legal on 20 August by Nathanael Nerode,
shermans-aquarium appears to contain non-DFSG-free images files.
It is unclear to me whether these files are even distrib
even read the entire of
text of the summary).
What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on
this?
[1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing
Debian GNU/Linux | trend
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we
basic
mappings from Xt event names to Xt actions, some of which appear to be
stock and some of which are registered by the code. I'm not sure this
is copyrightable.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux
case,
of copyrights, or with the USPTO in the case of trademarks.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Men are born ignorant, not stupid.
Debian GNU/Linux | They are made stupid by education.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bertrand Russell
http://peo
ord"
would be more or less free than
work (B) which is GPLed but is not trademarked "AbiWord"
???
Are you trying to make a point about case, or did you mean something else
entirely?
I have long asserted that there is a distinction between work titles and
things like package names a
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:57:44AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I suspect Larry Rosen's work was part of the motive for Branden
> proposing the contract/ autocrat test for licences.
You're not wrong, but as you imply, he's far from the only offender.
--
G. Branden Robinson
en-gb.html#guidelines
[4] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
[5] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[6] I'm given to understand it's not an acronym anymore. Or was that AT&T?
[7] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_22.html
--
G.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:59:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > What brought about this change of heart?
[...]
> Historical context can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive.
Oh yeah, and lest you think you&#
e gigantic threads the announced the license change generated.
In my view, there are many more questions than answers to be found on that
list -- particularly when it comes to on-topic threads, sadly.
[1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/
--
G. Branden Robinson|B
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:33:26AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson:
> >>> Josh Triplett:
> >>>The license looks OK to me, with the possible exc
esn't understand.
At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs
into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal
issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is
actually required. Armchair quarterbacki
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > However, if you really want to know how DFSG
hat many Debian developers confidently predicted that Mr. Pavlovich would
lose.
Some people don't like to let facts get in the way of their opinions. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor.
Debian GNU/Linux | It has you
[self-followup]
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:09:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is, however, worth noting that many subtle variations of the MIT/X11
> license exist. That the traditional MIT/X11 license is (by
> general consensus, I daresay) DFSG-free, that any license derive
of the
DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help.
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00030.html
[2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.o
#x27;t dare attempt with respect to technical software issues
for fear of being ridiculed and thought of as immature brats by their
peers.
--
G. Branden Robinson|It's extremely difficult to govern
Debian GNU/Linux |when you control all three branches
p://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html
[2] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html
--
G. Branden Robinson| The more ridiculous a belief
Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability
ideal, the situation is not *quite* as dire as you paint.
> Sickeningly there's plenty of precedent for this second scenario. Stay
> away from the US; they have delusions of imperialism.
s/delusions/ambitions/
See:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pn
one has never dealt with, or even heard of, the person or
corporation who holds a given copyright.
A license is a license, not a contract.
IMO it would be best to at least contact the upstream authors and make this
request.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Our ignorance is God; what we
l doomsayers with poor
reading comprehension skills. They need to feel important, too.
:-P
--
G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my
Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigg
t of some of that at some point, I
> seem to remember.
Do you think you could update that list in light of what we know now about
the original licensing of the X autoconfig code?
--
G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux |
which Daniel Stone quoted, failed the DFSG primarly due to problems in 3),
not 1). That reasonable people can interpret the license in a DFSG-free
way does not mean the licensor or copyright holder does so, and in fact we
were unable to determine what the licensor/copyright holder's
interpretat
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html?
Is this sort of remark intended to be productive, or are you just venting
your spleen because you don't appear to have actually comprehended the
message you cite?
--
G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember
gious
mistake". I don't know what business we have declaring licenses whose
terms we don't understand as DFSG-free.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never
Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it
[EMAIL PR
[self-reply]
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:59:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That the FSF regards this as a violation they can overlook doesn't mean
> other people using the GNU GPL won't, and there are many.
Er...
s/won't/will/
Hopefully my meaning was clear from con
ominence.)
The DFSG-freeness of a particular license as interpreted by a particular
licensor on a particular work is almost always the most important
evaluation that Debian has to make.
For further reading:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17409
http://lwn.net/Articles/95006/
--
G. Branden Robin
ght arguments, none of the above
are hypothetical reasons for a package's exclusion from Debian OS
release (or from distribution by Debian altogether). Apart from my
specific examples of a policy violation and horrendous bug, all have
been seen in practice.
--
G. Branden R
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> > specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
>
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:41:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> >specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
&g
-- just barely -- what it feels
like to be pulled over by the police for having the wrong skin color.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Mr. Markham,
>
> First of all, my apologies for sending this unsolicited mail.
>
> I'm a developer for t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll do this in the next day or so.
It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached).
I'll pass along whatever I learn.
--
G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the
/www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[2] http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html
[3] I'd likely argue that such a clause is non-DFSG-free, though. Feel
free to start a new thread if you'd like to hear why -- but until such
a license really exists, I daresay the questio
term
"AbiWord" to make factual statements about the heredity of their forked
work, which is probably good for the AbiSource community anyway. They
merely cannot attempt to "pass off" their work as AbiWord without
violating the Lanham Act[3].)
I hope th
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:06:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If I can discern the public domain version of the work from your
> "copyrighted" version, then your version is not copyrighted at all.
Gar. Nasty typo.
s/can/cannot/
--
G. Branden Robinson|
depriving the public of
its ability – and right – to freely use materials that were, for many
years, open to all. These laws have greatly harmed plaintiffs’
artistic endeavors, and their ability to perform, teach, and
disseminate works to the public."
-- http://cybe
there are some wrappers which make this rather
> easy, but I haven't done it myself.]
Jeff Licquia (a Debian Developer) has had some experience with this.
It might be worth asking his advice.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and
D
icense --
minus the vituperation against the GNU GPL), much time and trouble might be
saved in the future.
It's possible that in the years since since some developer placed a rant
against the GNU GPL in his license, he's realized that the GNU GPL doesn't
actually have the power t
ot exactly challenging to represent (X)HTML and CSS
on paper, given that they're plain text. (Granted, this would drive the
page count and corresponding cost up. But it's not *challenging*.)
This argument holds less water for binary document source formats.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, s
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:27:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>
in their debian/copyright
files responsibly. Is this a crazy assumption? Do package maintainers who
don't do so deserve any credibility on this mailing list?)
--
G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing
Debian GNU/Linux | trend
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:48:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >Sounds good. You may or may not want to take into account the Debian Wiki
> >page on DFSG-free licenses[1], and what it has to say about the QPL.
>
> I disagree with this to
by George W. Bush." Sadly, I think
this would fail because people aren't actually that rational or consistent.
:)
[1] Disclaimer: I am a U.S. citizen and resident, and consequently
everything I say must be suspected as an argument for occupying Iraq
and/or using the Kyoto Protocol a
le to expect most
licensors to be?
This sounds to me like a good reason for keeping the Desert Island test, and
buttressing it with real legal principle.
"Passing the Desert Island test: It's not just a good idea, it's the Law."
--
G. Branden Robinson|
fail if that were the case.
>
> Would you care to base your assertion on fact and logic?
(5 days later...)
Perhaps not. :-/
--
G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining.
Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code.
[EMAI
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 08:23:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
>
> > If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free
> > Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that
> > he or she never re
s in general, or only if they use some buzzwords
> ("by using this software, you agree to ...").
It was motivated by reading a number of outrageous statements in licenses
over the years. The one I attributed to XFree86 was only the most recent.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:16:24AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 09:00:02 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Data point: I can't scare up the reference at the moment, but The XFree
> >Project, Inc., asserted that the warranty discla
s opposite. Can you
clarify, please?
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211765
[2] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
--
G. Branden Robinson| If you're handsome, it's flirting.
Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a trol
e by the DFSG.
Must you insist on embarrassing people?
(Pbatenghyngvbaf, lbh unir pbeerpgyl vasreerq gur fnepnfgvp angher bs guvf
cbfg. ;-) )
--
G. Branden Robinson| It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to
[EM
l
[3]
http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-CHOICE_OF_LAW.htm
[4] http://www.fraserlawfirm.com/Publications/Business/BS-Venue.html
--
G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we wo
ractice, MPL meets the goals of
> DFSG excellently.
Proof by assertion; wow. Good thing we're not lawyers, or we'd have
detected that fallacy.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never
Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal st
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:01:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper.
Well, *this* list is like a debate, as are discussion lists generally.
Announcement lists are more like newspapers.
--
G. Branden Robinson| W
We are, it appears, duty-bound to read the DFSG as narrowly as possible,
because it helps our users more to have publicly available software
distributed specifically by the Debian Project than bad licenses that take
away their freedoms harm them.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Peop
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
>
> We are obligated to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> >to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
>
of :) ).
That things get particularly weird with the copyright regime when patents
are held to affect the same works as copyrights is an indictment of the
practice of both patenting and copyrighting software, not an indictment of
our license analysis practices.
These are my assertions.
underway.
[1] N.B.: That the MIT/X11 and UCB/BSD licenses aren't given titles with
the words "free" or "public" in them doesn't mean they aren't documents
that grant license to traffic in a work to the general public at no
charge. If you find thi
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> >
ntract means to do what we can to
protect ourselves and our users from the capricious actions of licensors.
By welcoming arbitrary termination clauses, we welcome capriciousness.
As Pamela Jones put it:
If the license you accept is oppressive in its terms, that means you can
be oppressed.
[
skipping out of answering my questions with
the excuse that they're "rhetorical", so I hereby put you all on notice
that this isn't one.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Of two competing theories or
Debian GNU/Linux |explanations, all other things
[E
[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous
> as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.
Sorr
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we
him how this is coming along.
I'll do this in the next day or so.
[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3FCB8B00.5070604%40mozilla.org
[2]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FFC952B.2020302%40mozilla.org
--
G. Branden Robinson|
ces as well.
[1] A worldwide, paid-up, nonexclusive, royalty-free, blah blah blah,
license that gives someone almost as many rights as they'd have if the
copyright were assigned to them.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux
them sincere questions about their intent.
We are less likely to ask sincere questions about GPL-compatibility if
we've already made up our minds that that's what people want.
There are other presumptions it's good not to make, such as "the copyrigh
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]:
> > I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant
> > given our current leadersh
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:41:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:
perhaps you're right. Why do you suppose people are doing as you
claim? What's the grand strategy behind this conspiracy?
If you can identify that, perhaps you'd be in a better position to combat
it, no?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on
ew version of
the Social Contract is not the one that is currently in force. Those who
were furious with the changes saw to that.
Oh, the irony. :)
[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
--
G. Branden Robinson| The last tim
ur license to terminate.
"The copyright holder reserves the right to terminate your license at any
time, without prior notice, and without your consent." is substantively
different.
Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g.,
discussion to indulging in
masturbation shall forfeit the argument."
--
G. Branden Robinson| If we believe absurdities, we
Debian GNU/Linux | shall commit atrocities.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Voltaire
http://people.debian.org/~branden
, there is a difference between being screwed by people
within the Free Software community, and people outside it.
It is occasionally useful to be able to distinguish good neighbors from bad
ones.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither
Debi
relative to other Linux distributions" varies
by the individual.
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract
(Surprisingly, it would seem, one can find the language "Our Priorities
are Our Users and Free Software" even in the original version of the
Social Contract.)
--
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriou
helpful, and spare us much gnashing of teeth later, if they
thoughtlessly copied the unambiguous statement that this is not part of
the copyright license as well.
The DFSG problem is resolved as far as I can tell. Thanks a lot for
working with Best Practical, LLC to bring this iss
x27;t be the case; witness the abuse of the people on this list when
we *dared* to find the IETF's RFC license non-free[1]. Somehow, not
shipping (some of) the RFCs in main made them inaccessible, and infeasible
to access.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=92810&msg=
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:08:06AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I think every program in Debian is held to the standard of being "useful".
Please, s/is held/should be held/.
If you're like me, you should fear the counterexamples that could be
brought to the fore.
--
G
f it's so easy, we should be able to package a
trivial one for demonstration purposes. We could even ship it as part of
the emulator package itself.
Again, this is not really a DFSG or debian-legal issue, it's a Debian
Policy issue.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never attribut
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can
> > be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on
of xinetd's namespace. He wants to
> forbid a derivative being numbered as xinetd 2.3.15, taking away the
> official version number.
On what do you ground your statement of the author's intention?
--
G. Branden Robinson|No executive d
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:17:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction
> > between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of
> > such projects (which al
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
>
> Minor is relative, and depends on context.
>
> In the context of G
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:56:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose
> >that
> >GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criter
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> >
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:01:02PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better
> > move quickly to evaluate what's going on here.
>
> Sorry, I mixed up -policy with -
1 - 100 of 1567 matches
Mail list logo
