Re: Bad license on VCG?

Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:52:24AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making > > > modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you. > > > > No. Where is that

Download of non-US illegal in US?

[Please CC, I'm not subscribed] Currently, tells US residents that it's OK for them to download software in non-us for private use. That was true when non-us contained only crypto - but a while ago AJ told me that the policy for non-us is "blurry" these days,

Re: Removal of Email Address

On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:31:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Debian does not redact its mailing list archives. It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an unusual situation -- the request is coming from someone whose e-mail address appears on the To: line of a message posted by

Re: Download of non-US illegal in US?

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Richard Atterer wrote: > [Please CC, I'm not subscribed] > > Currently, tells US residents > that it's OK for them to download software in non-us for private use. > That was true when non-us contained only crypto - but a while ago AJ > to

Re: Removal of Email Address

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:31:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Debian does not redact its mailing list archives. > > It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an unusual situation -- > the request is coming from someone whose e-mail

Re: Removal of Email Address

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I don't think that's "unusual" or any kind of exception. Short of > things like libel, anything I say on the Debian lists should get > archived, whether it's something someone else doesn't want published > or not. We're no

Re: Removal of Email Address

On 9/1/02 5:08 PM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG enlightened us with: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:31:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> >>> Debian does not redact its mailing list archives. >> >> It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an u

Re: Removal of Email Address

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:10:30PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > I don't think that's "unusual" or any kind of exception. Short of > > things like libel, anything I say on the Debian lists should get > > archived, whether it's something someone else doesn't want published > > or not. > > We're

Re: Removal of Email Address

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:18:45PM -0400, Ian L. wrote: > I agree with Mr. Bushnell. I simply hope that the Debian list archives > uses some sort of email munging mechanism in the future to make the > archives less harvestable by email-grabbing robots. I don't object to this, as long as: 1) we ap

Re: Removal of Email Address

Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:18:45PM -0400, Ian L. wrote: > > I agree with Mr. Bushnell. I simply hope that the Debian list archives > > uses some sort of email munging mechanism in the future to make the > > archives less harvestable by email-grabbing robots. > > I don't o

Re: Removal of Email Address

Michael Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as > the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group website has a > tutorial for setting up "spam proof" mailing list archives by converting > all e-mail addresses into image

Re: Removal of Email Address

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > I don't think that's "unusual" or any kind of exception. Short of > > things like libel, anything I say on the Debian lists should get > > archived, whether it's something someo

Re: Removal of Email Address

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Michael Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as > > the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group website has a > > tutorial for setting up "spa

Re: Bug#158529: vcg does not have a usable license

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No, no, no. The preferred form is the preferred form for the author, > for *anyone*. It's what I would want to have, it's the real, actual, > genuine source. > > The preferred form is found by considering the *actual* forms which > exist--and seeing