There has been some discussion on debian-devel recently regarding the
Linux Core Consortium's plan to share build procedures and resulting
object code among several GNU/Linux distros. Their intention is to
satisfy independent software vendors' demands for a set of "golden
binaries", including comp
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> > >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> > may "
Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.
And their absurd abusive semantics of the word "free" is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more "non-free" than GPL or
Artistic? (
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
> >>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
> >>>4. Products derived from thi
On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not
> >> > the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything
> >> > needed to operate the device.
> >> ...except the firmware?
> > No: the driver
Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncer que
votre commande Eurorest contenant :
1. Un chèque hôtelier international Eurorest
2. Un réglement du système Eurorest
vient de vous être envoyée à l'adresse:
Tensiong-Duboss Alain
59, boulevard Vincent Auriol
75703 Paris Cedex 13
France
Vous recevrez v
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
>> > excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
>> > names is not.
>>
>> First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
>> permitti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> differently depending on the presence of additional software -- the
>> kernel, for example, or the firmware.
> I'm not doing this either.
Great. Then the driver operates differently depending on the presence
of additional software -- it needs a Linux ke
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
>If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
>done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against thos
On Dec 20, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >> differently depending on the presence of additional software -- the
> >> kernel, for example, or the firmware.
> > I'm not doing this either.
> Great. Then the driver operates differently de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 20, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> >> differently depending on the presence of additional software -- the
>> >> kernel, for example, or the firmware.
>> > I'm not doing this either.
Warning: IANAL.
>1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
>
>It was claimed during the debian-devel discussion that the LGPL is
>somehow a unilateral grant of rights under some legal theory other
>than contract, which doesn't make sense to me.
If you agree to the GPL (or LGPL), you
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> > [..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> > version number from the original software. [..]
> > =
> >
> > I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't th
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
> >If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
> >done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
> Absol
Derick -
The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
> As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
> by software distributed as a part of Debian, why would this clause cause
> any probl
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Find something that allows me to exclude people from using "Xdebug+" or
> > "RealXdebug" for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
> > with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
> > The
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:59:06PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc?
>>Presuming this modified yacc isn't trivially replaceable with a Free
>>yacc, this would prevent these packages from being
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Package: php4-xdbg
>>Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
>> Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
>> information about your script...
>> [further description]
>> .
>> The u
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>>>[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
>>>version number from the original software. [..]
>>>=
>>>
>>>I didn't looked at the rest of the licen
20 matches
Mail list logo
