On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
> over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
> as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don
John Galt wrote:
> I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
> Perens got "leaked" to Slashdot. I see part of the problem that the
> "news" people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
> skimming the mailinglists as a substitute for timely inf
William T Wilson writes:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> > Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
> > distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
> > assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
>
> In short, you can't do that.
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
> > legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
> > different that saying you can have this GPL code for $1)
In debian.devel.legal, you wrote:
>> --=20
>> The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address. Do no=
>> t send
>> private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature. CC's of =
>> mail=20
>> to mailing lists are OK. Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"=
>> . =20
>
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > > (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
> > > legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
> > > different that saying you ca
> Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
concerned to have the opportunity to comment before the story is
published.
I would argue that while a link to the DWN or
Robert Merkel wrote:
> > Like it or not, debian is an open project.
>
>In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
>release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
>concerned to have the opportunity to comment before the story is
>published.
Slashdot ain't the
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> >
> > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
>
> It seems to me, then,
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:41:30AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> As much as anything with "commercial" in the name makes me feel saddened
> just to talk about it, something like this clearly needs to be done. Yes.
> This is definitely a good idea. Much as I somet
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> > in some countries should not be treated like programs
> > restricted by their authors.
> >
> > gimp-n
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:15:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns
> > And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> > anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> > collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your po
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
> about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
> over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
> as RMS puts it. Ev
I think that this is an idea whose time has really come-- to make a 100%
(TOTALLY) free distro _as good as the commercial/proprietaryish ones for
"end users"_ and suitable for heavy use by true geeks as well. This is a
project that I've wished to get involved in for quite some time now, and I
have
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:21:51PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I know, this will be highly controversive :
>
> SERIOUS SUGGESTION FOR WOODY :
> we should get rid of all gif-making packages except 1 package
> a2gif in non-free, which will allow you to convert other images to gifs if
> you R
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> If they want to restrict to over 18,
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There's even nothing in most of the licenses tha
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "a collective work
> based on the program"?
Murky.
However, *if* Caspian argues that his distribution is a collective
work (which is necessary for him to make reservations about how it can
be re
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
> --- Forwarded Message
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.
The op
Erich Forler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which erupt,
It seems to me that the general flame wars are fueled to a very large
degree by the fact that the victim (here: Corel) seemlingly decides
wierd things in private *without* entering a dialogoue
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
> you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
> have to distribute to anyone.
There doesn't have to be. Their premise is that they can not distribute to
people
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> is there any problem with this package ? It was moved from non-free to main
> because of licensing changes, (LGPL for runtime, and QPL for the compiler). I
> just received a bug report about there being a new version, ... :(((.
Those three letters: QPL al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
> > you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
> > have to distribute to anyone.
> There doesn't have to be.
The
Gergely Madarasz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If yes, are LGPL and QPL compatible enough for this, meaning may you
> link some QPLed objects to LGPLed objects ?
Yes. The LGPL does not require any specific licensing agreement for
executables, as long as the end user gets the source code for the
L
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then how come the title of this thread?
That's how the thread started.
If they believe so strongly that these licenses would be prohibited as
illegal contracts with minors, then for every piece of IP in Debian that
is written by minors, they have no rig
From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.
I'd be more comfortable with that, yes.
I have a little problem in that my company is investing in a Debian project
(The details of that are _not_ yet public knowledge). We want to maintain
On Dec 02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> > >
> > > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > > slashdot isn'
On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
> Robert Merkel wrote:
> > > Like it or not, debian is an open project.
> >
> >In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
> >release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
> >concerned to have the opportunity to comment before t
Chris Lawrence wrote:
>On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
>> Robert Merkel wrote:
>> > > Like it or not, debian is an open project.
>> >
>> >In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
>> >release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
>> >concerned to have the op
On Dec 04, Frank Copeland wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
> >> Robert Merkel wrote:
> >> > > Like it or not, debian is an open project.
> >> >
> >> >In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
> >> >release it's standard procedure for the pers
29 matches
Mail list logo
