[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was
> looking at my project registration wrote to me:
I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC):
Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed
Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled
Thu
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:26:17PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote:
> >>So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere.
> MY blog and I can post what I want to post. I don't care about your opinion.
Very well, but "respect me" and "I don't care what you think" seem at od
Hello.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote:
So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere.
Admitting an error (or a misunderstanding, a misspeaking, or a good old
brain fart) is something people can respect;
Hm?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote:
> So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere.
Admitting an error (or a misunderstanding, a misspeaking, or a good old
brain fart) is something people can respect; retroactive edits are not.
--
Glenn
Hey Gymnasist, be advised that if Wallace
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
won't succeed in US, I'll invite him to Germany.
http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf
--
Rules on distribution
Basics
Vertical relationships between market participants operating
Hello Francesco Poli, hello list,
I should clarify things here...
You wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here.
Dropping down, down, down... :-(
Don't think of all people in the FSF. Thanks.
Revising history is n
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here.
Dropping down, down, down... :-(
> Revising history is never a good sign.
Agreed fully.
_1984_ by George Orwell comes to mind (where the Minitrue continuously
rewrites history).
--
Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was
looking at my project registration wrote to me:
The decision about the licenses of the project documentations was a bit
prematurate and concerned discussions are in progress.
So nothing has changed until now. If you are still int
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Patrick Herzig wrote:
> FYI, Here's the full text:
[...]
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:aaX81KBybOIJ:blog.kickino.org/+gfdl+compatible+license+savannah&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
is the google cache,
http://rzlab.ucr.edu/debian/savannah_gnu_org_policy.html is a mirror
of
FYI, Here's the full text:
Tue Jan 31 23:13:51 CET 2006
Savannah.GNU.org switched its policy
Today Savannah.GNU.org switched its policy about the licenses of the
hosted projects.
Since today every project must release its documentation under the GNU
Free Documentation License or any other compatib
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 Savannah changed
> > it's policy becau
Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 Savannah changed
>> it's policy because Debian doesn't think
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 Savannah changed
> it's policy because Debian doesn't think the GFDL is DFSG-free. Worrying,
> if true.
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
Felix Kühling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> 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. Dual-licen
Hi,
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. Dual-licensing under GFDL and GPL is apparently
still ok. See al
16 matches
Mail list logo
