On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 09:32:07AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Darren O. Benham said:
> > > Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at
> > > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
> >
> > Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI
> > board (but
Darren O. Benham said:
> > Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at
> > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
>
> Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI
> board (but to say I am speaking FOR either entity)...
>
> I don't like the "or lat
Darren O. Benham:
> I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either.
> It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides
> the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distributing
> the software...
Can you even license someth
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either.
> It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides
> the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distribut
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:54:30AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia said:
> > I think it was intended for this clause to be nonbinding "requested and
> > strongly recommended" - but not required. I think it's a good
> > recommendation. But you're right - it's not always possible to meet
Brian Ristuccia said:
> I think it was intended for this clause to be nonbinding "requested and
> strongly recommended" - but not required. I think it's a good
> recommendation. But you're right - it's not always possible to meet this
> term with ease (or at all) and that's why it's best left as a
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:12:03PM +0100, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
>
> I find the following clause troublesome (section v):
>
> "1.If you are distributing Open Publication works on hardcopy or
> CD-ROM, you provide email notification to
> the authors of your intent to redistribute
I find the following clause troublesome (section v):
"1.If you are distributing Open Publication works on hardcopy or
CD-ROM, you provide email notification to
the authors of your intent to redistribute at least thirty days before
your manuscript or media freeze, to give
the authors time
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Small
write
s:
>G'day,
>Darren has suggested that I pass this onto the SPI board for pondering.
>
>There have been attempts before to change the Debian webpages license to
>something that is DFSG-free. I (as one of the sites webmasters) have
>taken on the jo
G'day,
Darren has suggested that I pass this onto the SPI board for pondering.
There have been attempts before to change the Debian webpages license to
something that is DFSG-free. I (as one of the sites webmasters) have
taken on the job to get it DFSG-free. It was suggested that the
Open Publi
I would recommend that you go to spi and make sure nobody there minds...
In honesty, I don't think anyone on the web team ever really considered the
license.. they just keep doing the work...
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> G'day,
> I emailled last week about the
G'day,
I emailled last week about the website license and how I have
suggested that we go with Open Publication License at
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Well... I got a stunning 0 replies.
I guess that means everyone doesn't have a problem with it! I'll wait a
day or so and then schedule a ti
12 matches
Mail list logo
