* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-26 03:29]:
> I think that http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ is a mistake which
> should be removed or drastically changed. It divides debian-legal and
> has been a gift to those who always seek to criticise contributors on
> more than one occasion. Can you
* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-21 22:33]:
> Any plans for the trademark side of the issue?
I asked Matthew Garrett to work on an appropriate license. He sent a
mail to spi-trademark in August (and a follow-up in September) but it
never went anywhere. I'll ask him to send another r
* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-20 18:17]:
> I'm wondering whether there has been any progress on the Debian Open
> Use Logo issue...
There has been some progress. Gregory Pomerantz, SPI's legal council,
has written a copyright assignment agreement and the arist of the logo
has agre
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 23:52]:
> Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
> review of licenses" suggested that "anyone can volunteer to
> summarize a particular discussion, post a summary to -legal to get
> the "ok" and then send it on" and that
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-19 15:10]:
> > Last time I suggested that -legal should engage in more active
> > arbitration with upstream
>
> Where precisely did you make this suggestion?
I had the discussion about the OLS in mind in which I asked whether
anyone had tried talkin
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-24 02:25]:
> Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above
> snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian
> Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the
> facts, given that even after n
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-14
20:55]:
> Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
> originally started the discussion, the license had not been published
> so I asked Don Armstrong and Matthew Garrett privatel
In September, I was approached by an important research institute in
Germany about a new software license, d-fsl. They are interested in
making sure that the license conforms with both the Open Source
Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
originally started the disc
* David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-17 15:23]:
> The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
> non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
> that Debian should have _some_ logo that is DFSG-free, and that
> the license of the open logo should be change
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]:
> Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up
> their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are
> appli
* 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 all know, that didn't happen.
It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I
suggested that -legal should en
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-13 04:09]:
> Hm, that would involve somebody monitoring the OSI lists, because an
Are the OSI lists public (sorry, cannot check, I'm off-line at the
moment waiting for my plane to Malaga)? Is anyone from -legal
following them already?
> unsolicited
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 00:01]:
> > Of course, perhaps the best thing for -legal to do is have people
> > self-nominate themselves to this position, and then have a small
> > vote.
>
> Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
> all of the summa
* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 09:17]:
> Hands up anyone who wants to take on the job of official d-legal summariser.
> I
> can think of a few people who *could* take the job, unfortunately, those
> qualified also tend to be those most qualified in other areas.
>
> I certainly
* Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-11 18:01]:
> I'm willing to take on a position to summarize our discussions,
> and present them to upstream. I think I can do this diplomatically, and
> I have some experience with this. (I was responsible for ironing out
Thanks.
--
Martin Michlma
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 01:03]:
> Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
> sound as if we think that we can *demand* that they change their
> license. We try to stress that the upstream author is perfectly
> allowed to set non-free terms for
* Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-24 11:17]:
> Specifically, I suggest:
>
> 1. a single place where review requests should be sent
> 2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for general discussion
> 3. an official entity, either a committee or a trusted individual who is
>
- Forwarded message from "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-21 15:00]:
> In sum, I think the two-year gestation process on debian-legal was
> necessary to give this joint committee of Debian and the FSF a
> tractable task to deal with.
Yes, I fully agree with this, and appreciate the hard work -legal has
done
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-25 18:37]:
> Can you explain what the policy is for which non-freeness issues
> *will* be regarded as "sarge-ignore"?
...
> It is difficult, from these data, to discern what exactly the policy
> for "sarge-ignore" and licensing issues is.
I'm afraid
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-01 13:29]:
> I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally
> would rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other
> delegate to this committee.
Branden and I have spoken about this on IRC a few days ago, but I also
wante
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-28 16:35]:
> > A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> > of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
> > serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
> > the FSF, and Thomas Bus
* Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-27 10:53]:
> The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding
> the FSF - Debian discussion:
I wholeheartedly support the formation of this committee. In order to
foster the discussion, I am willing to pledge some of Debian funds for
24 matches
Mail list logo
