On Saturday 21 July 2007 02:35, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:19:03PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > It appears that You are distributing firebird2-common in violation
> > of IPL section 3.6, and therefore in violation of copyright law in
> > many jurisdicti
IPL section 3.6, and therefore in violation of copyright law in
many jurisdictions.
Did I miss something?
--Mike Bird
(fn1) For a more rigorous approach, consider a version for which the
source is either not available or available only from snapshot.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
an
> his local laws.
Steve,
Where were you when you gave that legal advice without a disclaimer, and
where are you licensed (or "certified") to practice law?
IANAL
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ave to plan vacations
kind of carefully to avoid all those countries where you're now a felon.
As an officer of the court, you will be promptly confessing your crimes
to your state bar association, right?
Personally, IANAL. I don't give legal advice. I argue law all I want.
--Mike Bird
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 03:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Mike Bird writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> > Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a "small cabal" -
> > - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has
&
s not really our
> fault.
A reasonable rule of thumb is that if your argument doesn't
convince your colleagues then it doesn't stand any hope in
court.
The judge is going to rule on the license. Nothing else.
Now, without legally meaningless FAQs or imaginary judges,
please expl
wever, all software in Debian
archives is signed in by a DD, a member of Debian's web
of trust.
A new upstream bug does not affect Debian until Debian is
changed by the DD's incorporation of the upstream version
containing the upstream bug. When that change is signed in
to Debian, that is a c
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 08:21, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 07:41 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Reading a proposed contract or license in any way other than
> > literally and pedantically is "dumb". Some actions are so
> > dumb that no nicer adjecti
downside.
Why is "building a relationship with Sun" so important to
Debian that it's worth the risk to Debian of indemnifying
Sun, Sun's licensors, and all their successors in interest?
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an we now return to consideration of the issues?
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e covert actions of the "small cabal"
were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant
written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith
be posted to debian-legal.
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
11 matches
Mail list logo
