On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
>
>Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
>If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
No, but it IS my respo
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
On 26 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
>> then what is it?
>
>It's the name of the operating system.
>
>The operating sys
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
> then what is it?
It's the name of the operating system.
The operating system is named "GNU".
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
>John Galt wrote:
>> Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
>> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
>> then what is it?
>
>Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
>
John Galt wrote:
> Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
> then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian FAQ sometime. They'll give you two diff
On Saturday 23 June 2001 8:46 pm, John Galt wrote:
> Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago:
> if the GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is
> due, then what is it? This is very germane: I am operating under the
What it is is simple...it is a
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:29:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Of course it'd be different:
>
>Ok.
>
>> the case never had any merit in the first place:
>
>Case?
Switch (license)
case LBL: {}
case OpenSSL: {}
case Apache:
cas
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 11:29:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Of course it'd be different:
Ok.
> the case never had any merit in the first place:
Case?
> Apache uses a MODIFIED BSDL: clause 3 only applies to end-user
> docs.
Here's clause 3 of apache's license.
* 3. All advertising materials
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
>
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>> >Sure.
>
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 03:43:51AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Last
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> >Sure.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 03:43:51AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Last exchange, you said it wasn't. Message ID
> <[EM
On 23 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
>> irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
>> Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair t
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
> irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
> Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair that Debian shares
> the credit for the systems wit
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
>
>Sure.
Last exchange, you said it wasn't. Message ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as if I had to point it out.
>For example, apac
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> ...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
Sure.
For example, apache when running, includes GNU code (glibc).
The converse is not true for any gnu packages.
--
Raul
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Stephen Stafford wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> Debian's already doing this to so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 22 June 2001 10:28 pm, John Galt wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it
> >> Debian GNU/Linux.
>
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
>> GNU/Linux.
>
>No, we're not.
Then why IS it Debian GNU/Linux instead of Debian Linux?
>To see the difference, compare
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 02:37:43PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Debian's already doing this to some small extent by calling it Debian
> GNU/Linux.
No, we're not.
To see the difference, compare this to
Debian GNU/Linux -- This product includes software developed by the Apache
Group for use in the Ap
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
>> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
>> would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
>> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>>
>> In H
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
> > gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
>
> Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
> gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
--
Henning Makholm "Nee
"Puybr Ubsszna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jevgrf:
> Va Unecre & Ebj, Choyvfuref, Vap. i. Angvba Ragrecevfrf,91 gur Fhcerzr
> Pbheg znqr pyrne gung pbclevtug ynj vf fhofgnagviryl pbafgvghgvbany:
> gur Svefg Nzraqzrag qbrf abg fuvryq fcrrpu gung vasevatrf nabgure'f
> pbclevtug.92 Pbclevtug, gur Pbheg fnvq
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By this distinction are you suggesting that all clauses that cause the
> licensee to forego rights are unenforceable e.g. limitation of
> liability? I would not think too many open source developers would be
> happy with that scenario. Aren't they all
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court
> of law, then I would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>
> In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterpr
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
> would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>
> In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Ente
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:59:52AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> I fail to see the "first amendment" reasons. Violation of the First
> Amendment to the U.S. Constitution typically requires state action.
> To me this is a contract matter between private parties - I don't see
> state action.
Enforce
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date: 20 Jun 2001 20:04:21 -0700
"no
"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure why the BSD advertising clause is unenforceable in the U.S. To
> me it is a contract clause in the BSD like all other clauses
> therein.
It's obviously not a contract, for the usual reasons. It's a public
license, not a contract.
> If the BSD
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Question a
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> This is because a project containing code under both licenses would impose
> both sets of license restrictions on people. The GPL, however, is not
> miscible with license that impose any more restrictions than it does
> itself.
>
> Thus,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:10:24PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I see that at www.gnu.org, the old BSD license is not compatible with
> GPL, but I cannot understand why.
The old BSD license has this clause:
"* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
*must
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:10:24PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Now, IP Messenger (the original program) was released under
> the old BSD license, and xipmsg follows that. The latest version
> of IP Messenger is released under the newer BSD license.
>
> gtkipmsg is a derivative version of xipms
34 matches
Mail list logo
