On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than
> > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses),
> > and ot
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:57:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think "you're not a DD, so shut up" is about the weakest argument
> possible
It's just one of the classical fallacies (specifically argumentum ad
hominem, stock in trade for some people around Debian). There's no
real shortage of s
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even
> > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than
> > > licenses with
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It still doesn't seem to me like the "programs are free or non-free, not
> licenses" bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we
> evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's
> intent or beliefs (except as embodied
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[ I do love the way you just snipped the rhetoric I was following up
to... ]
>> *yawn* That's a nice line in rhetoric you have there. The DFSG is the
>> standard that DDs have agreed should be the basis for de
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> [ I do love the way you just snipped the rhetoric I was following up
> to... ]
That's nice. It's an old quote, and people can follow back the thread
if they ne
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> FFS, that's not what I was saying. You need to be a DD to propose or
>> vote on updates to the DFSG. You're clearly not a DD (nor in the NM
>> queue), therefore you couldn't do either. You could change that i
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:24:42 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [...] I try to approach its copyright holders and
> > persuade them to change license.
> > In order to be more credible when I point out the issues that makes
> > a license non-free [...]
>
> Here's the flip.
Hi!
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
Any issues with that?
Harald
--
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0300802/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> copyright or licensing notice be free?
>
> "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
>
> Any issues with that?
No, because it's very vague: "no rights reserv
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:51:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Often licences have or do not have specifics in how they're being
> applied to software. In our favourite furry Firefox case, there is
> stuff in the package not under the same licence as the rest.
That's just a case of multiple licenses, t
11 matches
Mail list logo
