On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 12:24:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> PS: Is it true that Ubuntu things about supplying a 3 year offer for
> source under 3b so derivates of ubuntu can go sourcelss?
A nice idea, to be sure, but it doesn't seem particularly helpful, unless
the derivative isn't mod
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:15:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:51:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > If you distribute binary images with a magazine and have something in
&
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you distribute binary images with a magazine and have something in
> that magazine saying "if you want the source write to with a
> photocopy of this specific text", everything is okay.
No more so than "if you want the source w
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:54:53PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You were perfectly right until that last sentence. If I buy a copy of the
> >magazine, with the DVD, and it contains a written offer to provide sourc
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:13:54PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL only states that there has to be a written offer for at least 3yrs
> to send the *source code* by post for cost price, to anyone *who you
> distribute it to.* This means the magazine only has to send the source
> code to *p
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> > revised
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote:
> We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
> which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
> has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship
> between the FAQ and the license itself.
Al
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:27:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > This is an additional restriction beyond those in the GPL. Therefore this
> > renders the license GPL-incompatible. Which is a major problem since other
> > parts
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
> > >
> > > THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY
> &
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:45:46AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
> > I don't think that the clause is necessarily a problem, though -- it reads
> > to me more like a slightly more emphatic no-warranty clause, rather than a
> > prohibition against use in any particular field.
>
> So what should I d
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:12:59AM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
> >>The TwistedSNMP-0.3.13/license.txt reads:
> >>THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY
> >>SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY.
> > This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define "shoul
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote:
> | |-- DCOracle2-cvs.tar.gz- +(ask)
> | |-- TwistedSNMP-0.3.13.tar.gz - +(ask)
> | `-- sybase-0.36.tar.gz - +(ask)
>
> The "DCOra
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:36:42PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Craig Southeren wrote:
> > >
> > > Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
> > > see this as a problem.
> > >
>
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:22:50PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:37 -0700
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> > > > > Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
> >
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:51:05PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
> GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
> distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
> As a user, the see
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Craig Southeren wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
> > > archive?
> > >
> > A NMU (non-mainta
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:43:42PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2006-02-09, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What really got me saying "whoa!" though is the blog post linked from the
> > ticket comments -- the fourth paragraph seems to say that S
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:04:22PM -0500, Felix Kühling wrote:
> I was trying to get my project DRIconf hosted at Savannah (Non-GNU) and
> found out that as of recently Savannah requires all new projects to
> license their documentation under the GFDL, which we all know, Debian
> considers non-free
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
> after an hour or two's thought.
>
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
> than ends, which we have diagnosed
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:56:02PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > >>> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer
> > >>> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying
> > >>> > "This product includes PH
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:39:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 11/25/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > "PHP scripts are derivative works of PHP" sounds like someone misinterpreted
> > the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the source of a program is a
> > der
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer
> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying
> > "This product includes PHP software"?
>
> Perhaps the PHP folks subscribe to the view that
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0700, Joe Stump wrote:
> odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain
> their packages through apt instead of pear.
>
> pear upgrade Package_Name
>
> - or -
>
> pear upgrade-all
>
> Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-p
[Cc'd as requested; consider using the Mail-Followup-To: header to make it
semi-automatic]
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:16:53AM +0100, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> The antennavis source includes a copy of togl.c and togl.h, which are
> both part of the Togl library, an OpenGL TK widget hosted on
> sourc
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >> extern char **__err_msgs;
> >> >> #define perror(s)
> >> >> (fprintf(stderr,"%d:%s:%s\n",errno,__err_msgs[errno]))
> >> >
> >> >> Is "myfile.c" a derivative work on "errno.h"? Th
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 04:19:31PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
> >treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
> >called .h.
>
> Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are no
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:22:12AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> >> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
> >> reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
> >> latter has a documented API and
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:34:28AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> >From: Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I don't think it's a GPL violation. To my way of thinking, the
> >derivatives graph would look like this (where "A --> B" mea
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:49:22PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> I received the following response, claiming that dlopened plugins do not
> need to be GPL-compatible:
>
> > > Given that the QPL is GPL-incompatible, this raises issues for GPLed
> > > programs that wish to use this kpart. I believe th
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:53:35PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Kuno Woudt wrote:
> > * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
> > users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
> > any user interacting with the Program was given the opportuni
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:45:36AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
[snip excellent example of wild linking graphs]
> Some argue that this is in violation of the GPL. I, however, fail to
> see how any part involved, except the FTP plugin, can possibly be
> construed a derivative of the GPL'd library.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:31:38AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the
> > last few years are to be trusted, does not strike me as a bad thing at
> > all).
>
> This issue is new to me. What are those sig
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:09:10PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
> > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
>
> That would be the case. Is this a problem?
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:31:35PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> It's me again :-)
> I asked my team aobut using a dual license, GPL / CC-BY. So far the
> response has been good. Several people have said "yay" and no one has said
> "nay". We are currently drafting the copyright not
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 06:19:28AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > The more operative question is if we found the specification from
> > the patent file, copied it, and then benefited. As I doubt very
> > much any Free Softwar
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 01:54:18PM +0100, Eike Dehling wrote:
> " Spin is distributed in source form to encourage research in formal
> verification, and to help a support friendly and open exchange of
> algorithms, ideas, and tools. The software itself has a copyright from
> Lucent Technologies
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:53:04PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Nope, I'm not. I work with the project, debating until we reach a
> >consensus. You work against it, attempting to devalue that consensus
> >because you don't like it.
> You are missing the obvious poin
[Cc'd as requested]
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:05:35AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
> Can anybody point me to some information related of decision to
> officially drop contrib and non-free sections after Sarge release.
Can you point us to an announcement of the decision to officially drop
contrib an
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 05:20:14AM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:09:01 +
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:37:53AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > The laws that are applied are the place where the alleged violation
> > > occu
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:05:22PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> And that is why it is *possible* for choice of law clauses to be
> non-free: selection of laws that are intrinsically non-free is no
> different to writing them into the license in the first
> place. Precisely which ones are a probl
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:31:59PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:50:01 +
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I do not see how a free software developer trying to squeeze money out
> > of a megacorporation, and having to spend a bit extra to travel to
> >
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:11:15AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn L McGrath writes:
> > hmm, so if parts of the license arent enforcable in the licencees
> > jurisdiction, then a "choice of venue" clause could be used to drag
> > people into a jurisdiction that they are enforcable...
>
> Yes,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:06:29AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:06:29AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> >
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> >
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they compl
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:14:47PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > > Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own?
> >
> > Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they compl
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that we have conveniently
> > > ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD lic
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:32:32AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> This problem has been resolved by discussion with the copyright owner of
> the image files in question. The website that the images were
> originally distributed from [1] now has a license statement for the
> windows screensaver
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:32:32AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> This problem has been resolved by discussion with the copyright owner of
> the image files in question. The website that the images were
> originally distributed from [1] now has a license statement for the
> windows screensaver
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lewis Jardine:
>
> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> > (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there ar
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:21:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > I'm not referring to those who sell proprietary licenses to a separate
> > version of the software; I'm referring to those who use a copyleft
> > license and sell excepti
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:34:47PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
> > be explicitly claimed.
> >
> > Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
> > enough to license the damn thi
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
> >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-par
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Find something that allows me to exclude people from using "Xdebug+" or
> > "RealXdebug" for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
> > with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
> > The
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >>Should I go on?
> >
> >
> >No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
> >idea what you're talking about.
>
>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I can
> convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are software. With
> tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all electronic data is software
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> There is also the throuble with textures from texture-cd-collection or
> from the web that are only allowed to be redistributed in their
> rendered form, ie. redistributing the rendered image under any license
> I am free to do, redistr
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:52:36PM +, Rich Walker wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> That seems a bit harsh; I think sarge would be quite usable for this
> >> purpose, as long as you avoid GFDLed bits. Is there a
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> >> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the developmen
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
> several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
> *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built
> and distributed by others are
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:20:08AM -0400, Brian M Hunt wrote:
> On September 13, 2004 11:28 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > You can sue Microsoft in any state in the Union, and probably most
> > countries in the world, without this clause, too. That's because
> > Microsoft no doubt does business
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 01:45:25AM +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
> they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
This clause doesn't appear to caus
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a
> > non-original-author. But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original
> > author would use it.
>
> Indeed,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:45:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the
> > &
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
> > > your QPLed work, you
atisfied,
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:54:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > DFSG #5. Discrimination against a person or groups of persons. In this
> > case, the group that contains !(initial developer). A common definition of
> > discrimination in the sense of exclusion
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
> > > > same license you r
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Consider for a moment a license that said something like "You must
> >>either distribute under this license with source, or under a proprietary
> >>license
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
There's a fair cost involved in just keeping the
[Sorry for the Cc if you're subscribed]
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:13:13AM +0100, Robert Gibson wrote:
> I have a difficult query about open source, which I hope someone here
> can help with. My friend Gordon was very close to having a working
> Flash 7 player called "magnesium" that runs under Li
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It would be hard to argue that the licence implies that the patch must be
> > under the QPL, because (a) copyright law in the jurisdictions I'm aw
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:31:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
> >> a bunch. So please explain to
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
> > a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
> >
> > 1. Modify a QPL'd wo
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:05:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:38:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> > > the QPL of the patch ?
> >
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:01:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So t
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
The problem you are going to end up with for this, though, is that there is
no authoritative En
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:28:41AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> > >[...]
> > As s
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:43:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
> &g
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
> interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing
> to
> fear from this, and you only stand to gain.
We fear that as soon as we specia
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I don't think you mean "derivative" in the same way the USC 17 means
> "derivative", and I *really* don't think you mean it in the same way
> Berne does. The idea that influence grants copyright is not common --
> indeed, it's
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On F
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sven's messages are constantly and deliberately laced with derision and
> > insults--in almost *ev
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:11:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:28:24AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it makes you feel happier, consider the tests to be "proposed amendments
> > to the DFSG". Do you feel that the dictator test does not reasonably
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:57:31AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That said, I don't think we are obligated to ship something just because
> it is DFSG free. For example, I don't think we should distribute
> massive quantities of public domain poronography. I don't think we
> should ship a BSD
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
> > > security agencies, at least this is how i understood it. This inc
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The
> You are not required to accept this License. However, nothing else grants
> You permission to use, copy, modify or distribute the software or its
> derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if You do not accept
> this License.
Would it be too much to instantiate a test which states t
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes
> > > y
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
against them. Who is exactly
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
actually engage him in conversation.
Every time he does one of the following, take a drink.
* His rebuttal of your argument includes the word "bogus"
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> &g
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> > > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in dis
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
