--
Arnaldo Gomes dos Santos
Analista de Sistemas
"This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only non-working copies
of Quagga."
The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working; try to execute a
Debian package...
"Anyways, I'll repeat my earlier assertion: if working copies of Quagga do not
use functionality specific
Hi,
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
Please Cc: me since I'm not subscribed to this list.
Thanks,
Svante
--
To
On 5/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only non-working
> copies of Quagga."
>
> The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working; try to execute
> a Debian package...
I'm not sure what you mean here.
On May 13, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Svante Signell wrote:
Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
companies.
I could be wrong, but I see no me
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
> > upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
> > what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also
> > nullifies any claims of contributory infr
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> mkdir t
> cd t
> I_WANT_OPENSSL=yes apt-get -b source quagga
> dpkg -i quagga*.deb
>
> These commands are easily deduced from the debian readme.
So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If he
violates t
None of the following is legal advice, or should be construed as legal
advice.
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante Signell wrote:
> Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the
> software I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial
> use (e.g. private persons and universiti
REPLICASONLINE - WE NEVER COMPROMISE ON QUALITY
Rolex replica is our speciality
We guarantee lowest prices and highest quality
We are the Direct manufacturers.
For top quality rolex watchs pleas visit:
http://www.replicas4me.net
downbeat ij deere sbx [2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
De: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On 5/13/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > "This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only
> > non-working copies of Quagga."
> >
> > The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working;
> > try to exe
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If he
> violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
This isn't "nothing to do with us". We've done practically all the work
needed for the us
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:06:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If
> > he
> > violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
>
> This isn't "no
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
> infringement?
Why did Napster decide to offer a billion dollars to the
recording industry, to settle their copyright suit?
Do you think they were just smoking crack?
Unlike
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:21:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
> > infringement?
>
> Why did Napster decide to offer a billion dollars to the
> recording industry, to settle t
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:21:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
> > > infringement?
> >
> > Why did Napster decide to o
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > We have a license to distribute said material and we are abiding by the
> > terms
> > of the license. You might as well say that book publishers are contributing
> > to infringement because books are so easy to photocopy.
>
> Excep
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > We have a license to distribute said material and we are abiding by the
> > > terms
> > > of the license. You might as well say that book publishers are
> > > contributing
> >
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:04:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But we are more like a book publisher than Napster. We have a license to
> > publish certain materials, and we do so. What the user does with the
> > materials after they receive them legally from us is both none of our
> > business
De: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > We have a license to distribute said material and we are
> > > > abiding by the terms of the license. You might as well say
> > >
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:04:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But we are more like a book publisher than Napster. We have a license to
> > > publish certain materials, and we do so. What the user does with the
> > > materials after they r
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:49:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, I have made that claim. I've even shown the commands
> to issue to obtain evidence that we do so.
>
> Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
> pieces individually. But "we sometimes don't dist
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
> > pieces individually. But "we sometimes don't distribute the work"
> > is not equivalent to "we do not distribute the work".
And yet somehow this work can get on the use
Raul wrote:
> If we don't do that, we might cause someone or some group (perhaps
> some of us) to get stuck with paying openssl.org some heavy
> license fee, to release openssl under gpl compatible terms. Or,
> maybe we'll create a situation requiring some other sort of
> settlement. And, if that
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:17:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
> > > pieces individually. But "we sometimes don't distribute the work"
> > > is not equivalent to "we do no
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin
> Franklin
What essential liberty do you think we're neglecting, here?
--
Raul
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How do you account for it getting onto user machines?
>
> I'm done here.
That's fine.
> You are obviously more interested in trolling
> or spreading FUD than having a conversation.
That's not.
--
Raul
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:17:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The work you are speaking of does not exist in our archives, as far as I
> > > can
> > > tell. It can only be built on a
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm done here. You are obviously more interested in trolling or spreading
> > FUD than having a conversation.
>
> It's nice to hear someone else come to this conclusion.
You've b
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software
> I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g.
> private persons and universities) and a commercial license for
> companies.
>
>
On 5/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm done here. You are obviously more interested in trolling or spreading
> > > FUD than having a conversation.
> >
> > It's
Sorry for making inroads to other peoples territories. I just wanted to
know if dual licensing is possible. Obviously is is not possible to
combine GPL and other licences, but why are people talking about it?
I've seen several notes about this on the web: Note that I have not
releasesd any (code o
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:09:41PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Can I suggest something similar to the Aladdin model for Ghostscript -
> release the current version as "paid for, for commercial use, supported
> by us": after a year GPL it and put support into the community. If your
> code b
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've been rather consistently insulting for a number of days.
>
> Oh, please. Like you've been Mr. Clean. You have been rude,
> sarcastic, and dismissive from the very first message you contributed
> to this discussion (
> http://li
[NB: Please follow Debian list policy and do not Cc: people unless
they explicitly request a Cc. The canonical method of requesting a Cc:
is to set a Mail-Followup-To: header that includes your addres. Also,
you'll have much better luck if you refrain from top posting.]
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante
On 5/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You've been rather consistently insulting for a number of days.
> >
> > Oh, please. Like you've been Mr. Clean. You have been rude,
> > sarcastic, and dismissive from the very firs
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there are other specific statements which you found to be
> insulting, please do let me know; it's possible that I have said
> something else comparable to "behest of the FSF" for which a similar
> apology is due.
Thanks, but I'll take
37 matches
Mail list logo
