Lex Spoon said on Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:43:31PM -0400,:
> A license text is simply a proposed contract,
Right and wrong.
A document allowing your neighbout over your property is a
contract. The law relating to immoveable property (real property)
calls it a license. Its validi
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:02:08AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> Do you really want to package software if you can't even make contact
> with the author?
>
Man, there are a lots of stable old softwares without an active/known upstream
around in Debian since ages.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> The consensus from debian-legal archives and current discussion seems to be
> the
> MPL is non-free. Below is a summary of reasons, compiled from commentary on
> the
> MPL and the similar Nokia license reviewed last Augu
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:23:37PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms
> of the GNU General Public License (the "GPL"), in which case the
> provisions of GPL are applicable instead of those above. If you wish
> to allow use
Hello, I have a special_offer for you...
WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT?
The most powerful weightloss is now available
without prescription. All natural Adipren720
100% Money Back Guarantée!
- Lose up to 19% Total Body Weight.
- Up to 300% more Weight Loss while dieting.
- Loss of 20-35% abdominal Fat.
- Redu
> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NN> Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
NN> little bit of it which is troublesome.
Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful.
4b> to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 02:15:37PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
> free'. I realize that it may be *annoying* or *stupid*, but how is it
> *non-free*? I understand how *excessive* conditions on modifications
> may make something non-fr
> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
Me> free'.
AS> Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
AS> not. There is no "partially free" or "semi-free". So "barely
AS> free" is "
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:48PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
>
> > 1. Firebird Database
> >
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
>
> Something wrong here??
>
Interbase Public
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
> is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
I disagree; obtaining software under a DFSG
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are exceptionally confused. A contract is a legal agreement, with
> specific requirements -- typically agreement, compensation, and a few
> less famous ones.
>
> A license is a grant of permission. Much like a title or deed, a
> license may b
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure though,
> that absent a decision from a higher court, a court can choose to hear any
> case it wants to -- if that court decides to hear your case, either you
> appear or you're toast. Different courts just have different rules about
> what constitutes a va
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> NN> Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
> NN> little bit of it which is troublesome.
>
> Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful.
>
> 4b> to the extent reas
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Me> One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
> Me> free'.
>
> AS> Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
> AS> not. There is no "partially free" or "semi-
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
>> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
>> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
>> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
>
> Wh
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
>> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
>> is always beneficial to receive software under a free license
16 matches
Mail list logo
