On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:37:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> This is a totally valid concern, and I'm glad it keeps coming up, but I don't
> feel like it's enough to paralyze any attempt to modify the DFSG. I'm
> definitely against haphazardly modifying foundational documents (and the
> recent
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
> I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
> then I'll believe you.
I've thought about
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:54:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
> > I don't think it can be done in a free wa
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:05:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> > > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:15:57PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:58:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Regardless of whether choice of venue is a "fee", the only people I've
> > > seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex
> > > Spoon and Sven
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we sure that follows DFSG yet? FSF have been a little patchy about
> broad software patent termination clauses, IMO, which is probably
> partly because software patents are unfair and no software should be
> patented.
The presence of a license terminatio
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying [...]
I
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040728 00:58]:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
> > that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
> > of d-legal (who can't
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Assufield
Is this intended to be a witty play on Andrew's name? I'd have hoped
that grade school name-calling, at least, was above DD's ...
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:06:00AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Assufield
>
> Is this intended to be a witty play on Andrew's name? I'd have hoped
> that grade school name-calling, at least, was above DD's ...
Its his irc nickname
David Nusinow writes:
>
>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in the
>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing to
>fear from this, and you only stand to gain
On 2004-07-28 09:25:36 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The presence of a license termination clause merely allows the license
to fall back to a state that we'd consider free in the first place
That's only true if the licence only terminates the patent licence for
patent infr
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:35:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > My opinion is that choice of venue is a restriction, and that "fees" are
> > just
> > one example of restrictions which "may not restrict" in DFSG#1 disallows.
>
> DFSG #1 says : "may not restrict any party from selling or giving aw
David Nusinow writes:
>On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:52:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> It can help, though. There are multiple discussions going on here:
>> 1: "does DFSG#1 only prohibit fees, or other stuff, too? What's a
>> fee? Where's my dictionary?"; and 2: "is choice of venue an onerous
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> This sort
>> of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG is
>> exactly what's caused so much ire within the rest of the project towards this
>> list.
>
>No, firstly (a) that's j
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it was, and the project as a whole really did agree that the things
> being argued recently--choice of venue, license-termination-at-my-slightest-
> whim, forced distribution to upstream on demand, forced archival of source
> for years (GPL#3b without
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's only true if the licence only terminates the patent licence for
> patent infringment, rather than attempts to use copyright to enforce
> patents, surely? Some have posted things about whether that is some
> sort of misuse anyway, but I've not fully und
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:34:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> It's these sorts of potential problems, IMO, which have stifled DFSG
> amendments.
Mostly it's just a lack of time. You would not believe how much work
it takes to put something like this together. I'm kinda planning on
seeing it ha
On 2004-07-28 11:40:58 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The context is the IBM Public License. It only terminates the patent
license, not the copyright one.
Someone should have fixed the subject line. Further, 2(b) of IBMPL was
not quoted, so it was a link chase to find what
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:46:00PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > DD's
> > > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
> > > that'
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:55:21AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> This sort
> >> of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG
> >> is
> >> exactly what's caused so much ire
While working on my little wiki on yardradius, I found something which
could be of interest for this ML. Cistron Radiusd 1.6 is released under
GPL, and pkg description says:
This GPLed Radius server is not based on any Livingston code. It is
compatible with the Livingston-2.01 server though. Ov
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> While working on my little wiki on yardradius, I found something which
> could be of interest for this ML. Cistron Radiusd 1.6 is released under
> GPL, and pkg description says:
Damn it, I joined a thread instead of startin
Are you looking for a date in your area?
local young and mature men and women looking for a good time
Just Copy and Paste in your Broswer
onkandy.com/chick.html
uhlivctkuqvqzmhbqjdejdeeuevs
czraeiyxpnpznkextawkxs
tgjrpyvphrgsgdrebaiffzcizlsa
lpruonqsbkwgbvbhdqtrosgjw
krgwudcyejufeblfcz
I'm interested in adding cwm to Debian:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html
It's available under the W3 software license, appended to this message and also
available at this URL:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
The license looks OK
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:06:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
> > > 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
> > > against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
> > > libraries (.a) it
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:05:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Bah, i still don't believe that these two clause are really non-free. They
Debian-laptop-request
Volumizer Doubles, Triples, Quadruples and MORE! ... not just volume of
ejaculate, but
intensity and power of 0rgasms. "
IT WILL ABSOLUTELY BLOW YOUR MIND"
Enjoy a bigger, more impressive load of cum ejaculation.
Experience orgasms that go on and on..and on!
Best sexual ex
28 matches
Mail list logo
