On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > > chances of
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > chances of remaining in the archive.
> Well, did i try to delay examination ? I pos
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:16:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> No response yet to my reasonable thread, i wonder if it was the good way to
> go finally.
I'll speak up and say that your new thread appears to be fairly inclusive of
several points of concern in the QPL.
I imagine that nobody has re
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:45:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of
> > > > > "course of
> > > > > action" exactly.
>
> > > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
>
> >
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course
> > > > of
> > > > action" exactly.
> > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
> > In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of
> > upstre
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:57:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
> >am sure
> >others keep log and can provide the info.
>
> You can't prove it and no-one can
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:33:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:
On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
am sure
others keep log and can provide the info.
You can't prove it and no-one can see it because you don't keep logs.
When you get a log, things change.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:42:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> IIRC, neither of us could find a log of this incident, so can you
> please stop referring to it? Seeing as you wrote you had "no time for
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i am sure
others keep log and can
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Thanks, but in all this
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
> >
> > If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> > you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
>
> Well, sorry, but mail writing in
On 2004-07-19 22:27:05 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
Elsewhere you thank people for not cc'ing. I am confused about what
you want.
Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be
other
reasons to it. What is the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
> > > suggestion, so i have
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
If you set the Mail-Followup-To header to incl
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>
> If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> you. I have no obligation t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:37:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
>
> Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
> expecting every subscriber to thi
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
expecting every subscriber to this list to do your work for you.
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +02
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
>> have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
>
>If I remember correctly, both
Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
>> seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
>> the defendor, wh
Please CC me, as i am not subscribed, and uysing lynx over ssh to participate
is hardly convenient.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is
>> done
>> at installation time, and the linking at emacs
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL non-free.
> >
> >I didn't claim that it was, so this statement isn't relevant.
>
> Ok, so everything is fine, and there is no reason to change the licence, nor
> to r
>Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> 6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
>> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
>> then you must supply one.
>>
>> So, if you make a release that is not general, but limited to a small
>> group of people, th
First, thanks for not CCing me on this, as i asked.
>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue",
>> if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not
>> respecting the licence
>
>That is the whole problem wi
>
> #index top up prev next
>
> ___
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Hello debian-legal.
>>> >
>>> > I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
>>> > QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a
>>> > solu
26 matches
Mail list logo
