Well, could we get any consensus on this issue?
Best regards, 2002/8/23
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:01:44AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> (I've rather gotten the impression that the DFSG is like the Torah
> (even though the text is not necessarily final yet) and debian-legal
> is like the ongoing compilation of the Talmud, but having Methuselah
> around opens up some n
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 02:48:35PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> You're avoiding the question.
You didn't ask one (except for one which you admitted was off-topic).
> >Therefore, I reject your analysis.
>
> Saying so perhaps makes you feel better, but it doesn't make the analysis
> go away.
Co
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:11:36 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> I suggest that this interpretation of "name" here is at best an implausible
>> one. For one thing the word "name" has a number of interpretations, as it
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:15:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
>> argument of \ProvidesPackage is "functional" then it would be inconsistent
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> I suggest that this interpretation of "name" here is at best an implausible
> one. For one thing the word "name" has a number of interpretations, as it
> is a very general term. If your legalistic interpretation really was all
> that
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
> argument of \ProvidesPackage is "functional" then it would be inconsistent
> to not declare as non-free also a license that only requires a version
> number
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] On a completely off-topic matter, shouldn't that rather be "your
> wanting it to be so", with a possesive pronoun and the -ing form of the
> verb? Perhaps someone natively English-speaking can clarify this; I suspect
> it could be a matter on the l
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:10:12 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
>> > wanting it
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
> > wanting it to be so will not make it so. DFSG 4 does not permit it.
>
> 4. Integrity of Th
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
> wanting it to be so will not make it so. DFSG 4 does not permit it.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from be
11 matches
Mail list logo
