Re: LDP licences

2001-12-08 Thread John Galt
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >> On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> > >> >Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list? > >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Um, yeah. > >How would you know? Because they used your name? No, that's not it. > Waah! It's all about

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-08 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > >Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list? John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Um, yeah. How would you know? Because they used your name? No, that's not it.

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-08 Thread John Galt
To: John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Um, yeah. On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all? > >Blah blah blah. Who said you did? > >Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list? > -- There is no problem so gre

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-08 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all? Blah blah blah. Who said you did? Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list?

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread John Galt
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all? On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a >> no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly >> and con

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a > no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly > and consistently reminded by certain nameless individuals (how's that for > irony :) And yet, you kee

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html > http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html > http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5 > > I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights, > while the second is not (i

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread John Galt
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote: >Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences? > > http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeated

Re: LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html > http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html > http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5 > I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights, > while the second is not AF

LDP licences

2001-12-07 Thread Colin Watson
Could somebody please have a quick look at these three licences? http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XWindow-User-HOWTO-1.html#ss1.5 I believe that the first and third are simple DFSG-free copyrights, while the seco