Now that GNU Privacy Guard is available to do everything PGP does under a
free license, is tehre any reason for the developers keys to be in contrib
instead of main? Is there something here I'm missing?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Now that GNU Privacy Guard is available to do everything PGP does under a
free license, is tehre any reason for the developers keys to be in contrib
instead of main? Is there something here I'm missing?
Yes:
2.1.3. The contrib section
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 07:39:19PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Yet he is remarkably successful in all this forcing and cramming,
> particularly given his lack of means of coercion. I think it is
> more likely that there is actually a large group of people who
> agree with him. How do you thi
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not the
> > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > found a kewl foobar program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it,
> >
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not
> > > the
> > > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > >
Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in comp.os.linux.announce:
New Copyleft License
Bowerbird Computing has released version 1.0 of the New Copyleft License
(NCL). This license is intended for programmers working
Martin Schulze wrote:
> I haven't read the license but it might be wise to know if we can
> consider it DFSG free or not before the first package using it arrives.
> It may be also a good idea to set up a web page that describes why
> we don't consider it as DFSG free if we don't do, so maintainers
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > He has already proposed on more than one occasion that Debian get rid of
> > > the nasty (in his mind) point on our social contract to support people
> > > who use non-free software and has taken steps to cause us to all but
> > > delete the contrib and non-free portions
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 06:57:47PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Cites, please. I have never seen him propose this, and I have seen
> > > none of these steps. You are misrepresenting him.
> >
> > It was a mistake to bring this up here. My apologies, the cites would
> > almost exclusively
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (We just saw an example of what to fear with BIND: its BSD license
> > allowed modifications under more restrictive licensing conditions,
> > so the upstream maintainers are now putting
Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> not defining all the legal terms. One huge risk is that 'derivative' and
> 'copyright' will be divergently interpreted in various countries.
That is probably intentional. R
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 07:58:17PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > (We just saw an example of what to fear with BIND: its BSD license
> > > allowed modifications under more restrictive licensing conditions,
> > > so the upstream maintainers are now putting out the new version
> > > under a non-
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 26 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> > not defini
Hi Seth, I just saw http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/apsl.html on slashdot and
read your point that the license says:
13.1 Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
re-export the Original Code except as authorized by United
States law and the
14 matches
Mail list logo
