Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>> >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
>> >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
>> >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not
>> >list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote:
>
> > Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:]
> >
> > > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG
> >
> > More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote
> [...]
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 22:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and
> > as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause
> > incompatibilities I am now jus
On 03/09/2007, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the
> > DFSG by disguising that as "editorial changes".
>
> Only you and Anthony Towns believe th
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:]
>
> > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG
>
> More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote
[...]
Yes, that's the whole story in more detail, thanks for expanding my
summary
Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[Comparison of DFSG and OSD:]
> OSI based its OSD on the DFSG
More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote the latter document first, and
then copied it wholesale with trivial modifications to create the former
("The license" instead of "The license of a
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
[...]
> Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and
> as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause
> incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In
> summary I think that the OSI's
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the
> > > ftpmasters.
> >
> > Well this is not too helpful. I would wish t
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the
> DFSG by disguising that as "editorial changes".
Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the
> > ftpmasters.
>
> Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are
> acceptable are all officially listed
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> >One example is all the GFDL-ed stuff that got approved before
> >realizing that it does not comply with the DFSG.
> No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change
> the DFSG by di
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I disagree that this can be a good approximation, since assuming it is
>would imply that DFSG-compliance bugs (almost) never happen.
Indeed, they do not.
>One example is all the GFDL-ed stuff that got approved before realizing
>that it does not comply with the DFSG.
No,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:58:45 +0200 (CEST) Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are
> >acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here?
> With very good approximation, you can be sure that packages in main
> have acce
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are
>acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here?
With very good approximation, you can be sure that packages in main have
acceptable licenses, and work from this knowledge.
>So this means, MPL, CPL =
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
> >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
> >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
>confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
>debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not
>list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatibl
Dear all,
the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more
confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the
debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not
list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1].
Also the con
17 matches
Mail list logo
