On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
>> morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in
>> every package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are,
>> in fact, 10
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:12:02 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
>> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
>> all of it, even when upstream sh
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight.
>
> Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
> removable "README" file would be a "violation of the social contract",
> while that EXACT SAME PARAGRAPH in a "COPYING"
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:43:12 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I
> thought that was what you were saying.
>> You seem to be proposing that we deliberately close our eyes to
>> DFSG problems we may encounter, as long
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> For the record, I do pledge to uphold the social contract, and my current
> key does have signatures from other developers on it :-)
Unfortunately, that mail wasn't signed, so there was no way for us to
check. Hence, you're a liar.
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 20:43, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> That is not my position! As I hope you would know. I would never
> close my eyes to a DFSG problem. All our software must be free:
> modifiable etc. That is a given.
>
> The items under discussion are not "software" in the usual sense of
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 22:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> - the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
>than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
I wouldn't. I'm not aware of any besides in emacs. A quick grep of
/usr/share/doc (where else should
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 13:44, Matt Taggart wrote:
> b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
> distribute a modified version of this package, then
> clauses 3c and 4c are required
3c is not good. Renaming might be fine (depends on the technical
effects), bu
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
>
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
>
> When the GN
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
>
> Um, isn't that precisely what we'r
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
>
> > Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
>
> After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Se
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:49:43AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
> >
> > > Um, isn't that precis
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> >> The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
> >> morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in
> >> every package for the li
Folks,
I maintain GNU R (www.r-project.org and www.$ISOCODE.project.org) and a
growing number of packages from its CRAN archive (cran.r-project.org, also
country-code mirrors). R is GPL'ed, and most of the CRAN packages are too.
One such CRAN package, GPL'ed and all, was written by someone in t
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:54:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> evil manojish paranoia mode> For the record, I do pledge to uphold
>> the social contract, and my current key does have signatures from
>> other develope
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I maintain GNU R (www.r-project.org and www.$ISOCODE.project.org) and a
> growing number of packages from its CRAN archive (cran.r-project.org, also
> country-code mirrors). R is GPL'ed, and most of the CRAN packages are too.
>
> One s
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:15:59PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > You agree that you are a customer of Commerzbank who has been issued
> > with a valid password or the employee of such a customer who is
> > authorised by such customer to use such password and to access and
> > make use of this pro
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:15:59PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You agree that you are a customer of Commerzbank who has been issued
> > > with a valid password or the employee of such a customer who is
> > > authorised by such customer to use suc
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
> > > England.
> >
> > This is GPL-incompatible.
>
> In what way? Also note how they then add the per-country specifics, also
> common in the industry
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:39:11PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I maintain GNU R (www.r-project.org and www.$ISOCODE.project.org) and a
> growing number of packages from its CRAN archive (cran.r-project.org, also
> country-code mirrors). R is GPL'ed, and most of the CRAN packag
20 matches
Mail list logo
