>From the threads
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00108.html
and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00208.html,
i think that the license for Torque and OpenPBS are not acceptable,
because there is not consensus and people complained f
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
>
> Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
> does not contain universal turing machines.[1] (Hint: Think bacte
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
>> and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
>> "modification" instead of "DFSG 3" seems useful.
Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of "modification" instead of "DFSG 3" seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed th
Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License) v1.0
is not a DFSG-free license.
- It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear. This is
a significant restriction on modification (DFSG ยง3)
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked. After a suitable delay
without serious objections, a version without the "DRAFT" marking can
be poste
Humberto Massa said on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:25AM -0300,:
> I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to
> be more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the
> summary with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4)
> is a nice thing.
E
First of all, great job.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
yay. skip
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
And possibly, annontations?
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going to
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just because a single section of the DFSG fails to enclose all of
> > the problems of a license doesn't mean that a a license does not
> > violate a section of the DFSG.
>
> But my point is that it does more
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
>> It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
>> provides some, but not all, information about why we decided the
>>
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, great job.
Thanks!
>> 7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
>
> And possibly, annontations? Clearly separated from the full text of
> the license?
Like what? This isn't really supposed to be a full analysis, just a
su
12 matches
Mail list logo
