On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Leon Shiman wrote:
> > - Begin Forwarded Message -
> > From: David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sven,
I have been forwarding industry-significant mssages from the Forum list to
the xorg_foundation list because i knew that many xorg list recipients were
not monitoring the Forum list.
David Dawes is aware of this. I have also informed rms.
Leon
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100 Sven
Hello,
in July 2001, there was a thread about the DFSG-ness of the OpenPBS
license[1]. Clauses 1 and 2 are clearly non-free, but they expired at
the end of 2001. Most of the discussion was about clause 5, but I was
not able to get a clear consensus about this from the archive.
Could somebody ple
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:41:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Could somebody please review the license again and state whether it is
> DFSG-free or not?
Hmm, please also notice that I'm interested in packaging Torque[1], a
fork of OpenPBS with modifications by supercluster.org, so I'd be
inter
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:42:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Branden,
>
> Again, you do great job in following the licence stuff, and
> felicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soon
> to be upcoming 4.3.0-1 package.
Just my luck that when I finish the TODO list, some s
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 07:53:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:43:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:42:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Branden,
> > >
> > > Again, you do great job in following the licence stuff, and
> > > felicitatio
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:43:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:42:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Branden,
> >
> > Again, you do great job in following the licence stuff, and
> > felicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soon
> > to be up
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> B) Copyright 1985, 1986 The Regents of the University of California.
>All rights reserved.
>
>This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
>James A. Woods, derived from original work by Spencer Thomas
I am writing to seek advice concerning the wording of a copyleft
license for the TEI Guidelines, which we hope to package for Debian
in the near future.
Introduction
The Text Encoding Initiative's _Guidelines for Electronic Text
Encoding and Interchange_ are a large specification for
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:11:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 07:53:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:43:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:42:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Branden,
> > > >
> > > >
Around 14 o'clock on Feb 11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The DFSG-incompatibility of xc/lib/font/fontfile/decompress.c is more
> serious.
Disabling .pcf.Z font file support shouldn't be a significant issue;
XFree86 has used .pcf.gz files for many years.
We can either stub-out the functions in de
* Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-24 11:17]:
> Specifically, I suggest:
>
> 1. a single place where review requests should be sent
> 2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for general discussion
> 3. an official entity, either a committee or a trusted individual who is
>
U...
In general I have some difficulty with the argument
XFree doesn't use ABC, we have been using XYZ for years.
Therefore ABC doesn't matter to anyone anymore.
Dan
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible license
> From: Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:20:08 -0600
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-x@lists.debian.org,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 foru
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:24:48 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible license
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:20:08 -0600
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:41:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> This license covers use of the OpenPBS v2.3 software (the "Software") at
> your site or location, and, for certain users, redistribution of the
> Software to other sites and locations. Use and redistribution of
> OpenPBS v2.3 in sour
Around 15 o'clock on Feb 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In general I have some difficulty with the argument
>
> XFree doesn't use ABC, we have been using XYZ for years.
> Therefore ABC doesn't matter to anyone anymore.
Sure, in general that argument is quite weak. However, it's also the case
t
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:14:06PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-24 11:17]:
> > Specifically, I suggest:
> >
> > 1. a single place where review requests should be sent
> > 2. review requests are posted to debian-legal for
Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [skipping the non-applicable clauses]
Beware. http://www.openpbs.org/license.html does not exempt the two
first clauses anymore. Of course that does not affect old sources that
someone may genuinely have received under the older license text, but
taki
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:14:06PM +,
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> I'd like to hear what other people from -legal think. I'm certainly
> not going to appoint anyone without the consent of -legal since this
> is just not the way it can work. But perhaps we can find a solut
On 2004-02-11 19:44:36 + Syd Bauman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The goal here is not to prevent modification of the guidelines, nor
to prevent the creation of non-TEI derivatives, but rather to prevent
confusion between the two.
Could you achieve this goal by endorsing official versions wit
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Of course, perhaps the best thing for -legal to do is have
> people self-nominate themselves to this position, and then have a small
> vote.
Hmm.. do we really need to have a single person charged with writing
all of the summaries? As far as I can se
Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Apparently Debian finds these minor restrictions acceptable. So I've
> > been thinking that if we can write either
> > a) a copyleft notice that requires those who modify the Guidelines to
> >retain unmodified or delete in its entirety the section that
>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [skipping the non-applicable clauses]
>
> Beware. http://www.openpbs.org/license.html does not exempt the two
> first clauses anymore. Of course that does not affect old sources th
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [skipping the non-applicable clauses]
>
> Beware. http://www.openpbs.org/license.html does not exempt the two
> first clauses anymore. Of course that does not affect old sources th
Scripsit Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And, as mentioned before, I'll like -legal to be more proactive and
> talk to upstream authors of licenses instead of waiting for them to
> contact us.
Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
so
Scripsit Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > 3. Any Redistribution of source code must retain the above
> > > >copyright notice and the acknowledgment contained in
> > > >paragraph 6, this list of conditions and the
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 01:03]:
> Usually, when we talk to upstream authors, we try to be careful not to
> sound as if we think that we can *demand* that they change their
> license. We try to stress that the upstream author is perfectly
> allowed to set non-free terms for
On 2004-02-12 00:17:52 + Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If the deletion is required, it must be possible - then Debian could
at least distribute copies with the section removed. (And then ship a
cleanroom rephrasing of the relevant information in README.Debian).
I wonder how t
Scripsit Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > The terms of the licence are "restrictions" on redistribution, so
> > > the modifications aren't under this licence, they're effectively
> > > public domain. Not a good thing.
> >
30 matches
Mail list logo
