standing
of philosophy to resolve the present understanding.
* The Debian Project generally respects the copyright holder's
interpretation of the copyright license the copyright holder places on
a work;
* It is reasonable to assume that X-Oz Technologies, Inc., would have
used the Apach
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:00:49PM -0500, selussos wrote:
> We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments,
> I do not open them.
You confuse me; you replied[1] to a previous message of mine[2] which
contained an attachment of identical type (a PGP/MIME digital
signature).
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004, selussos wrote:
> We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of
> attachments, I do not open them.
You're actually looking at a piece of mail that has a pgp signature.
May I suggest using an MUA that is standards compliant and can deal
with pgp/mime (eg. not Outlo
> >
> Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
> useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
> thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
> want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same
> disposition as
: "Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "selussos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: X-Oz Technologies
> >
> Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
> useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
> thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
> want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same
> disposition as
re the Free
Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, and other organizations
certified it as satisfying their standards would be helpful as well.
I am assuming that the X-Oz Technologies license is not *intended* to be
precisely identical in meaning to the XFree86 1.0 license or Apache 1.1
lice
On 2004-03-03 02:16:45 + selussos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who
_reuses_
an existing and acceptable license?
The X-Oz is not directly any existing accepted licence, is it? -legal
members do ask these sort of questions a
iative, and other organizations
certified it as satisfying their standards would be helpful as well.
I am assuming that the X-Oz Technologies license is not *intended* to be
precisely identical in meaning to the XFree86 1.0 license or Apache 1.1
license, else I expect X-Oz would have simply used o
IS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
oduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any,
must include the following acknowledgment:
&
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote:
> I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software
> enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have
> been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other
> X-Ozzie, had been contacted previ
Hi,
Sorry for the noise but I was unsure if I needed to subscribe or not. Someone
kindly let me know that my post got through so I think it's better I just reply
as needed. If you think that this is burdensome I will subscribe if that is
preferred.
I am responding to this list, since a conc
14 matches
Mail list logo
