On 01 Mar 2005 03:34:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Basically, if you want to advise copyright holders what licence
> to use, the present DLS documents are not much help.
IMHO, they can be useful as a reference that explains which issues have
been found out in the license.
Of course the summary style can
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than
> > the DLSes give too. They say "this licence is foo" rather than
> > giving recommendations for what you think is the most common
> > want.
> I'm s
On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
> > > in main and check the copyright file.
> > Imitating other licensors and repeating the same po
On 2004-08-09 18:26:19 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[MJR] summary
guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses
3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not
connect
to the DFSG at all.
Either:
a. I was trying to con debian-legal i
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Since February, -legal has had an "official" (as official as they get)
> > document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
> > clause is non-free. Simon La
On 2004-06-29 22:21:16 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The summariser must implement a comand-line switch (--license or
--package) and generate a different type of output depending on how
he/she was invoked. [...]
Now, it's clear (even to me! ;-) and it sounds like a good propo
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:23:40 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Interesting reply,
TNX
> but it seems to have missed my main point.
Ouch, I apologize for this... ;p
>
> On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split int
Interesting reply, but it seems to have missed my main point.
On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split into two
`variants'
This part is correct.
in your opinion, every license should be summarized by one
do
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:01:36 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
>
> Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they're
> being done, now we've se
On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they're
being done, now we've seen them in action for a while.
There seem to be two types of
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:44:42 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
> whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in
> action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good
> because they always seem to include
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:44:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages,
> >not licenses.
>
> I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
12 matches
Mail list logo
