Re: Fwd: Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

Thomas Roessler wrote: > The most conservative and prudent solution would certainly be to > ship the castrated version of mutt with the main distribution, and > to put mutt-i into non-us. > > The Debian project may wish to spend some money on a legal opinion > from a lawyer specialized on such is

is this free?

This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning: http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/ Interestingly, there is this accompnying binary license: http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/grap

Re: is this free?

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second > opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning: > http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/ There's a general "you must monitor our website" claus

Re: is this free?

On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:20:43AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second > opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning: > > http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/ By accessing and using the So

Re: is this free?

Joey Hess writes: > This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second > opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning: > > http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/ Who said that was OSI certified? It seems unlikely and counterintuitive

Re: is this free?

Seth David Schoen wrote: > Who said that was OSI certified? It seems unlikely and counterintuitive > to me, and it's not listed in OSI's current Approved Licenses list. http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/whatsnew.html: "Open Source license" http://www.research.att.com/sw/tool

Re: is this free?

Joey Hess writes: > http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/download.html: > "graphviz is now OSI Certified Open Source Software." I'm checking with the OSI Board about that. I think there is likely some mistake. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will st

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

Chris Lawrence wrote: > It highly inconveniences our users, however. No part of the Social > Contract says "protesting stupid laws is more important than our users." How does it inconvencience our users? > It also inconveniences the Debian maintainer, who has to maintain two > different forks of