n't like the license, substitute any or no license.
>
--
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
to say that double-clicking or issuing a
"get foo" to your download client isn't enough to constitute acceptance of
a license.
- --
* You are not expected to understand this.
- --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE/PENw+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnR5AJ9KRQUzPXkFQbxLFxwOivuTTcEKbACeIA38
t+KL6qgBjaWhJuH6QRYevdI=
=fs2a
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Edmund
>
>
>
--
* You are not expected to understand this.
--comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who: finger me for GPG key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:30:04AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
>> exist. It means that you have recourse if
a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that you have recourse if sued to go after the one making
the Testimony for your costs. In Debian, a Testimony that rights exist
has usually been enough to cover for a license, but the term "license" for
tha
ent, Debian refrained from
>distributing many programs that linked to Qt.
>
>But we did not exhaustively catalog every case.
>
>
- --
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
D).
My hat is off to you: rarely has someone so successfully argued both sides
of an issue in 17 minutes flat.
- --
The early worm gets the bird.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Prepare for armageddon, we agree...:)
On 16 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The BSD Daemon is under the license at
>> http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.htm
tprint/addons/images/Beastie.eps
>
>[2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/muttprint/files/patch-ae
>
--
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nt of the AxKit package and Perl
>module XML::Handler::AxPoint are dependent on that Perl module. Am I right
>in thinking these latter two also have to go in contrib then?
>
>Thanks,
>Ardo
>
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
>wrote:
>> Is this solution OK for everybody?
>
>I see nothing objectionable from a DFSG perspective in the language you
>have proposed.
>
>Thanks for working on this issue!
>
>
--
void hamlet(
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Jun 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
>> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supp
muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle.
Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9DCfO+ZSKG3nWr3ARAuJLAJ9lXoNTgR2mrwVQGDOtoWVOuQrG9gCfd/8X
TI6iPb9nir3U5t9XUI93h7Q=
=eLvU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 05:04:21AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >Unless you own the copyright the GPL does not give you permission to
>> >relicense.
>> >Stating that you may
L, the
author ceded his right to determine the final form of the license to the
FSF unless he used a specific version of the GPL, subject only to the
promise of the FSF in clause 9 that they wouldn't change the spirit of
the GPL.
--
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the r
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has
years, to provide the source for
no more than the cost of media.
>i'd love to hear your thoughts...
>
>
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
>> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
>> include a perlsc
At least in the case of bind, the GPL is not part of the question. Look
at the license for bind...
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
>> actuall
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
>> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
>> include a perlscript must ne
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
>> does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
>
>The context wa
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
>> actually already in source form.
>
>"A Turing-complete system is one in which the behavi
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What does the GPL definition
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
>W.R. Lethaby
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>
>
>
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
wanted to modify the document, then that
>document is its own source code at least under the GPL definition.
What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
>
>
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
uot;for any purpose they
>wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even
>integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped
>on Australia."
>
- --
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>> On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> >
>> >Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list?
>
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Um, yeah.
>
>How would you know? Because they
To: John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Um, yeah.
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
>
>Blah blah blah. Who said you did?
>
>Were you addressed, um, *ever* on
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
>> no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debi
tion). Can somebody please confirm this?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
--
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
>Hello
>
>Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting. Just forget about
>that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies
>with Joes requirements. Unfortunately I doubt we will not find such
>a license.
>
>Kind regards
t I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Actually they are, if they wish to effectively maintain the copyright:
>
>They can choose to enforce against some people and not others, and
>have complete liberty. By failing
PL. There isn't really a squatter's rights doctrine for IP, but
I'd be willing to bet that sooner or later a judge is going to get tired
of all of this submarine patenting and selective copyright enforcement and
start handing down decisions that are remarkably similar to squatter
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>>
>
>> >The current license in full is:
>> >
>> >Terminology
>> >---
>> >1. The `original author' contained here i
this isn't a no-op. If we can find one,
that kills the license, regardless of the previous three clauses. That
is, if there exists a case where clause 4 becomes meaningful, and
prohibits an otherwise legitimate distribution, the license is non-free.
>5. A copy of this copyright notice must be included with any
> distribution or redistribution of this source code, and with any
> subsequent program distribution.
>
>
>
>Wookey
>
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
t;been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a
>reasonable allocation of risk.
>
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by a GPL'd
version of Qt), not because the QPL was non-free.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Ryszard Lach wrote:
>I'm very sorry, I forgotten the attachment.
>
>Ryszard Lach.
>
>
--
* You are not expected to understand this.
--comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to
yond the scope of this mail.
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
because those patents (in particular LZW) don't
>apply outside of the US?
>
>
>Hamish
>
--
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
>
>Stephen Frazier
>Information Technology Unit
>Oklahoma Department of Corrections
>3400 Martin Luther King
>Oklahoma City, OK 73111-4298
>Tel.: (405) 425-2549
>Fax: (405) 425-2554
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
--
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">John Galt
The "license.terms" file can be found in the tcl distribution.
>
>--
>
> * Copyright (c) 2000, Nortel Networks.
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * License is granted to copy, to use, to make and to use
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
>
>> Debian needs permission to modify as well. There has been a substantial
>> non-interest in .LZW decompressors since the Unisys thing in '94, so I
>> doubt that
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>IANAL.
>
>On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:37:11PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> A license is a contract, and wording within is binding.
>
>Even on people under 18 years of age? I think this is the biggest
I was mostly talking about bind
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:17:27PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>>
>> >I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
>> >want to process. It seems that
Replying to my own message, with a WORKING colon key.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, John Galt wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>
>>I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
>>want to process. It seems that the standard program for dealing w
nt
unless there's a sunset date.
>Thanks,
> Dylan Thurston
>
>
>
--
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I assume of course that you have cites on this? Please provide them.
>
>Cites? What on earth are you talking about?
Had you quoted the entirety, it would have been patently obviou
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>I'm snipping the normal John Galt obstructionism, off-topic political
>commentary, and attempts to confuse issues, and responding only to the
>real questions.
No, snippage around you usually means an attempt to redefine the argu
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
>
>Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives? If so, then yeah, I
>was shocked and dismayed to see something re
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 1) the list of thirty names
>
>This is annoying, but works fine.
What are you trying to say here that hasn't already been said?
>> 2) the group/readme
>
>This is
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
>> only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
>> groups start to get the sa
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> True, but this is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, as it's
>> sub-optimal.
>
>"we".
Myself and knghtbrd.
--
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> 2) the group/readme
>> >
>> >If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
>> >a hassle!)
>>
>> I
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
>> five:
>>
>> 1) the list of thirty names
>
>If there is no legal problem with this, it
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
>> >appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
>>
and may very well lose
talent permanently.
>
--
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">John Galt
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Of course, part of the FUD is courtesy of the FSF...
>>
>> http:www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
>
>Um, that's not FUD, though it's a little F. But it
owner to tell
every Debian user to remove a piece of software or face civil penalties
within a release cycle (unless, of course, the release cycles get much
longer, in which case the copyright would expire before the next release :).
Again, the URL is http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/ucitaF
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You're right, but this is also precedent setting: the first time that a
>> choice of law of a state where UCITA is in effect (it took effect 7/1) has
>> been used in
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:28:04PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for
>> Virginia, a UCTIA state. In the past, this was enough to make a
>> license questionable. Is it enough reaso
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This solves one of my problems. The second is more thorny.
>> It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for Virginia, a
>> UCTIA state. In the past, thi
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Possibly, but I'm not convinced that I have yet.
>
>Is there a reason anyone associated with Debian should bother trying
>to convince you?
Only the obvious ones. But, no, the
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:16:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> No, it requires releasability under the SAME license. Clause 5
>> requires modifications to be released with NO restrictions at all,
>> and all licenses necessarily restr
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
>> restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
>> dishonest, it's
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Yes, I am trying to misread the license. Worse yet, I'm succeeding.
>
>Hrm. Maybe you're actually Yogi Berra redivivus.
>
>> Clause 5 is capable of being constr
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >> GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
>> >> OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
>> >>
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
>> restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
>> dishonest, it's stupid.
&
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> With the XFree86 license, it's tough to find a restriction, but they have
>> one:
>>
>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>>in
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
>> >to obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
>> >modifications and/or
ly fairly gotten program without signing away your rights,
so the consent may be considered to be under duress. Worse: a click-wrap
with a choice of law clause putting it in Virginia. Hanging's too good
for the bastard that wrote this license.
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I really hope this is the last post on this *way* off-topic subthread.
> I've set Mail-Followup-To accordingly, I hope you respect that.
EOT here.
>
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [E
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You know, I'd say that no employer is going to give two shits about
>> activity on a mailing list, but your past actions speak of a willingness
>> to try to give the lie to
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or
>> may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the
>> listmasters for a reason
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Do you? I can think of three packages that the maintainer is acting in an
>> unaccoutable and irresponsible way. You may even think you know which
>> ones: I'm sure the D
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hrm. I'm trying to figure out how you can quote something without reading
>> it.you know, I just can't
>> feature i
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >noticed, we place a priority on real identities. Or haven't you
>>
>> No. "Our priorities are our users and free software". I really don't
>> r
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >I would assume that Hoffman is also aware that he's not a developer.
>> >Why is it supposed to alienate someone to remind them that certain
>> >lists are pr
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's not. What is supposed to alienate everyone is YOU telling them that
>> they aren't. Telling ME is one thing: I figure that if they don't know
>> enough
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No it isn't. Debian's one of my favorite distros, and I hate to see it
>> being brought down by the likes of you. Every time you tell someone that
>> they aren'
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, John Galt wrote:
>legality really has little to do with fairness in the sense you were using
>it.
>
Replying to myself: there ws supposed to be a URL here, but I deleted it
and forgot to delete the commentary. FWIW here's the deleted URL...
http://www.gue
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
>> not good enough for you to start on your "John Galt's not part of Debian"
>> kick,
isn't appropriate
>for debian-legal.
Neither is netiquette-nazism, but this is the umpteenth message that
you've sent today on the subject.
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:39:02PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Actually, you can. So long as the final result stays in the possession
>> of the person who did the linking, this is not a COPYright issue, but
>> a property right issue. T
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
>> also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
>> few conspiracy theo
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
>> corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
>> prove bad acts by all in th
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> One might, and one might be right. Remember, the US legal system is
>> based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
>> by the people, not vice-ve
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
>
>Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
>If you want to snipe from sidelines, go s
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
On 26 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
>> then what is it?
>
>It's the name o
years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>> Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
>> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
>> then what is it?
>
>Try reading the first paragraph of h
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:29:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Of course it'd be different:
>
>Ok.
>
>> the case never had any merit in the first place:
>
>Case?
Switch (license)
case LBL: {}
c
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
>
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>> >Sure.
>
>On Sat, Jun 23,
On 23 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
>> irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
>> Debian systems DO run Ap
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
>
>Sure.
Last exchange, you said it wasn't. Message ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as if I had
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Stephen Stafford wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrot
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
>> GNU/Linux.
>
>No, we're not.
Then why IS it Debian GNU/Linux instead of Debian
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
