Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> The fact that different people mean different things when they say
>> "software" was enough for us to stop using the word "software" where the
>> distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should
>> either get pe
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> >> We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
> >> software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
> >> that they don't consider the two to be the sa
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
>> software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
>> that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long
>> time
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> >
> >> I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
> >> the GFDL is a free software license.
> >
> > They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
>
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>
>> I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
>> the GFDL is a free software license.
>
> They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
> harp over the ambiguous usage of "softw
Matthew Garrett writes:
> I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
> the GFDL is a free software license.
They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
harp over the ambiguous usage of "software" rather than its subset
"free software"? I canno
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that
>> we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what
>> aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much
>> the same e
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >
> >> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
> >> free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
>> free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
>
> Whatever gave you the idea?
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as
>> freeness guidelines.
> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
> free softwar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Isn't the "choice of venue" clause one of the reasons for MPL to be considered
>problematic for Debian? If it is bad for MPL, then it is bad for QPL too,
>right?
Yes, except that a large number of people do not consider it a problem
(with the ftpmasters being among them,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it's at least one of the reasons both licenses are considered non-free.
(Despite us still shipping a moderately large body of work under both in
main)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:46:38AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > And that's where they really differ: different people implement them.
> > Is "to redistribute the work, you must agree to a venue of Norway"
>
> Isn't the "choice of venue" clause one of the reasons for MPL t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> And that's where they really differ: different people implement them.
> Is "to redistribute the work, you must agree to a venue of Norway"
Isn't the "choice of venue" clause one of the reasons for MPL to be considered
problematic for Debian? If it is bad for MPL, then it is
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:08:13AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free
> software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. If the DFSG are
> wildly divergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need to figure out how and
> why.
Althoug
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
>> guidelines.
>
> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free
> software (a term initially defined by t
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:06:15 -0700 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
> > >
> > > Then you do n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Readers should beware that Marco holds this opinion in known
>opposition to most other people on this list.
Readers should beware that this is a lie, and that the people believing
that the QPL is not a free license are an handful of people who extended
the meaning of the
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
> Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free
> license; but it's not GPL compatible.
This does not mean a lot. They believe the same thing of the GNU FDL,
but the FDL is non-DFSG-free in the general case.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
> >
> > Then you do not need to worry, because the QPL is a free license.
>
> Readers should bewa
Scripsit Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
> Then you do not need to worry, because the QPL is a free license.
Readers should beware that Marco holds this opinion in known
opposition to most other people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
Then you do not need to worry, because the QPL is a free license.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the subject of my former email quite clearly states QPL?
;)
Bahner
--
http://lars.bahner.com; Voice: +47 92884492; Postal: N-3870 Fyresdal
pub 1024D/54ECB8AF 2004-01-13 Lars Bahner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Key fingerprint = 0765 31CE 6223 B28C 1A64 4F7A 9972 7C14 54EC B8AF
sub 2048g/39
Scripsit Lars Bahner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So my Plan B is to stick these packages in non-free. Would that be
> ok?
Depends. What is their current license? The only information we have
is that you have not been able to get a GPL license, but that tells
nothing about which license they _do_ have.
Hi all,
please cc: me as I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
I have filed ITPs for some packages sancp, barnyard and sguil, all of
which are somewhat interdependent. I might get sguil GPL'ed but it seems
that there is a problem with sancp and barnyard, as their authors
doesn't answer my email,
25 matches
Mail list logo
