Am 2005-11-08 17:48:03, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I agree that offering access as tar.gz should be considered
> reasonable. And I would say it is pretty more acceptable than offering
> access through a SCM web browser. I would like to interpret GPL as in
> spirit and that would mean easy access
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED],
bizzar name you have...
Am 2005-11-08 14:36:26, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning
> about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not
> following them by the word may be mere toleration b
On 11/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
> Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
> GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources.
Ubuntu does distribute sources
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:03 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
(Just IMHO, but I think reasonable people would agree.)
Isn't that the definition of your opinion?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:13:08AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software
> >interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are
> >not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the sour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, distributing in a medium customarily used for software
interchange and offering access to copy from a designated place are
not the same thing. Mainly because you cannot be sure the source code
is properly distributed. You should make sure the person has the
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:56:31PM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Remember I have the
> >opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
> >place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability
> >and such) or under some different pr
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:03:56AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
> > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
> > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Remember I have the
opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability
and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they
are pretty standard and there are plent
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:39:39PM +0100, Olive wrote:
> >That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in
> >the *same* place.
> >
> >Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the
> >opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different
> >pla
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:38:50PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
> > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
> > promise? Should we con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:57 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
What does
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
> ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
> promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
> for the sources?
>
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
I am not a lawyer nor a devlepper of Debian, I just give my humble
opin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
> ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
> promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
> for the sources?
A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matte
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:51:07PM +0100, Jan Lübbe wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
> > Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
> > GPL-lice
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 10:37 -0200 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hello,
>
> I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their
> Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain
> GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. I also
> couldn't f
18 matches
Mail list logo
