On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>>
>
>> >The current license in full is:
>> >
>> >Terminology
>> >---
>> >1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
>> >contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>
> >The current license in full is:
> >
> >Terminology
> >---
> >1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
> >contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >2. The `source code' refers to the m
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is a requirement about what is done when those modification is
> made (you should send the mods to the author), but that's pretty easily
> dealt with (it's a "should" which means that if it ever did go to court,
> the court is likely to accept just
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 09:25:16AM -0400, I wrote:
> In the example we're talking about, the the license terms are the same
> for both cases. There are conditions which kick in when the sources
> are modified which are irrelevant if no modifications are made, but the
> terms are the same.
I shoul
> > If the terms of the license disallow modification and
> > redistribution then that's a problem.
>
> > Mind pointing out how that applies to this case?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:19:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 1. I think everyone agrees that to pass DFSG #1, the licence must
>have
Raul Miller answered me privately (but said it was OK to take the
discussion back to the list, which I hereby do):
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 08:38:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > As for DFSG chapter and verse I can only refer to point 3:
> > | The license must allow modifications and der
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[modifications-must-be-publicized clause]
> If a particular technology or delivery timeframe is required, that hurts
> people in countries without cheap implementations of that technology or
> where that timeframe is a hardship.
> This one might actually
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:11:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justification for
> particular versions of this clause under fields of endeavor but all
> the justifications I saw rested on some non-generic aspect of the
> clause currently under disc
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> If the "should send sources to author" thing is a
Raul> requirement -- if people must send sources to author under
Raul> some circumstances, it's a DFSG problem.
I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justifica
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>Just to clarify this a little for -legal readers:
>
>There is a set of boot utils for the risc PC that are necesary to partition
>the drive and boot a kernel, written by Russell King (arm kernel maintainer).
>
>These are not curretnly distributed with debian-arm
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:27:42PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wookey" == Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wookey> 1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author
> Wookey> for inclusion in a later release of the tools.
>
> Ask the author for what he means by shoul
> "Wookey" == Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wookey> 1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author
Wookey> for inclusion in a later release of the tools.
Ask the author for what he means by should. If he doesn't see this as
a strict requirement, but only a strong rec
Just to clarify this a little for -legal readers:
There is a set of boot utils for the risc PC that are necesary to partition
the drive and boot a kernel, written by Russell King (arm kernel maintainer).
These are not curretnly distributed with debian-arm boot-floppies because we
don't think the
Scripsit Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 1. Modifications should come back to me. This is to prevent the current
> >situation where people have long outstanding patches against the Linux
> >kernel sitting around that we, as a community, never see. If anything,
> >this is a requi
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On Tue 04 Sep, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > >as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in
> > >the RiscPC these days he may well now be happy to fully free this
> > >code so we can just use that?
> >
> > Did you ask him ab
15 matches
Mail list logo
