Mahesh T. Pai said on Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:01:44AM +0530,:
> > debian-legal: Have there been any new conclusions about the
> > Official Use logo that I'm forgetting, or should a bug be filed
> > against desktop-base?
>
> IIRC, discussion on this list have concluded that t
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Having said that, though, I will not argue further over the definition
> of software. You will not change my mind, and I doubt I will change
> yours. I also do not think it is so important: As long as the DFSG
> refers to packaged/d
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:16:32AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200310/msg00020.html
>
> Ummm... by somebody called Glenn Maynard.
Right; that's the same thread I linked earlier (or the small subset of it
that was CC'd to debian-project
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi.
>
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> course).
>
> Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving
Glenn Maynard writes:
>> That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
>> that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
>> Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference
>> Documentation or Free Speech.
>
> It does not help to pretend that
Glenn Maynard said on Sat, May 01, 2004 at 12:07:42AM -0400,:
> debian-legal: Have there been any new conclusions about the
> Official Use logo that I'm forgetting, or should a bug be filed
> against desktop-base?
IIRC, discussion on this list have concluded that the official log
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:08:37PM +0200, Nagy Viktor wrote:
> OPL requires the reproduced document to contain the incorporation of
> license by reference in the form "Copyright (c) ... This material may
> be distributed ...". Is it OK to substitute it with an
> equivalent translation in an Non-En
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
>
> >> That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
> >> that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
> >> Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Refere
Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
have to move the whole kernel there, and oh sure, libc to
Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
>> you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
>> section. However, you are not likely to find a sp
On 2004-05-01 04:06:35 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the softwa
Francesco Paolo Lovergine dijo [Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:40:08AM +0200]:
> > To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
> > you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
> > section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
> > TCP/I
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:33:51PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
> >>None. There is no alternative actually.
> >
> >
> > Exactly: we offer no
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I can understand some gift not meeting your standards, but it goes
> much too far to characterize the giver of disappointing gift as
> 'reprehensible'.
I find it extremely difficult to classify the GFDL as a "gift".
> The trade-off th
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:29:13PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > license, OPL, based on the summary on
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:47:31AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040430 01:47]:
> > * Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
> > > 1. where should somebody go to if (s)he wants to check if the FOO
> > > license is DFSG compliant? Obviously, lice
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > license, OPL, based on the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:12:28AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> >Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> >>pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> >>license, OPL, based on the summar
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 03:35:04AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> > course).
> >
> > Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> > ment
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Actually, the GFDL is quite clear: you aren't allowed distribute on an
> encypted medium even if it's accompanied by a freely readable medium -- you
> can't even *make* a copy on an encrypted medium, according to the line I
> qu
On Sat, 1 May 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The Official Use logo is not under DFSG-free terms, and by my understanding,
> it isn't intended to be. It is not allowed in the Debian archive. I don't
> believe this is silly, bizarre or hypocritical.
>
I on the other hand think it is all of the abov
21 matches
Mail list logo
