On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed
> > on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anythi
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >> The policy statement on http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980306a says:
>
> >> We allow all businesses to make reasonable use of the "Debian"
>
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > RMS approached Debian nearly
On 3 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> > would he have any
by the DFSG.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software
1AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >>> Please consider that RMS created the LGPL specificly to allow glibc to be
> >>> installed on, and used by, non
desire, and have mixed feelings about
the second. Control is always so temprary, at best. We would be better off
letting the "moral objections" of the community, guide the use of the
name, than to ever try to "define" adequate use requirements.
But I've been wrong be
ercial" distribution, based on
Debian, almost totally impossible. I certainly wouldn't be able to use the
logo on any Debian products that I might distribute, and I would find that
disapointing.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"
. For me it is
more free, as it lets more software execute not less. I also feel that
such software, by competing in a free environment, will be encouraged to
become more free as well. I give, as an example, Netscape. If libc6 were
not under the LGPL, then Netscape could never have run on a Linux mach
On 4 Dec 1998, Jens Ritter wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > > How does the GPL endanger the original copyright or the continued freedom
> > > of that source?
> >
> > It
On 3 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
> > With a proper license forking is no problem, and the freedom that is
> > maintained is the users freedom to choose the original work over the
> > forked version. Properly used "immutable source" provi
11 matches
Mail list logo
