> I've still yet to figure out exactly what the Creative Commons
> stands for but I don't really see them taking a stance similar to
> free software in a few areas, such as non-commercial licenses.
I agree completely and Richard Stallman and a number of people in the
Free Software and even Creati
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
1) they consider the OGL to be similar to "how Linux is licensed".
I think this is a dubious claim
I think is speaks more to a light understanding of how Linux is licenced
and the OGL structured than anything else. I
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 12:09 pm, Dave Hornford wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> >>>1) they consider the OGL to be similar to "how Linux is licensed".
> >>
> >>I think this is a dubious claim
>
> I think is speaks more to a light understanding of how Li
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:47:22 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:49:57PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
[...]
> > I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to
> > software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially
> > digital works such as
Hi,
I am working with other members of the Debian devlopment team to include
many of your fine PEAR packages in Debian. One recurring problem has
been consistently arising however, that we have had a hard time
addressing at the correct level, which is why I am contacting you about
it.
The problem
On 8/22/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that the GPL says "if you obey this license, you can do these
> things that you otherwise can't do".
>
> The OGL says "if you obey this license, you can do these things that are
> otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to ba
While I agree we probably need to review 3-5.. It may be worth
reminding debial-legal that AFAIK packages like phpgroupware, phpbb etc.
violate the PHP licence.. So I do hope they are addressing those issues
with as much vigor... ;)
The easiest solution is probably need to call this the PEAR lice
I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say, the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain their packages through apt i
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:46:58PM -0700, Joe Stump wrote:
> odd. What I'm a tad more confused about is why anyone would maintain
> their packages through apt instead of pear.
>
> pear upgrade Package_Name
>
> - or -
>
> pear upgrade-all
>
> Translates about as well as "apt-get install php4-p
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 03:30 pm, Charles Fry wrote:
> (snip)
> The problem is that the current version of The PHP License (version 3.0)
> contains several clauses which are specific to the PHP language, and
> either inapplicable or even problematic for applications written in PHP.
>
This is quit
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
> I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
> the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better
> IMO). To have the license require distribution of PHP is a little
> odd. What I'm a tad more confused ab
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 09:34 pm, Justin Patrin wrote:
> On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
> > > I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
> > > the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code
On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
> > I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
> > the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type code a lot better
> > IMO). To have the license require distribution o
Can you please make this another thread, this is outside the scope of
the original message :)
Arnaud.
Ian Eure wrote:
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 09:34 pm, Justin Patrin wrote:
On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:34:18PM -0700, Justin Patrin wrote:
> On 8/23/05, Ian Eure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 August 2005 05:46 pm, Joe Stump wrote:
> > > I agree. I never understood why we used the PHP license over, say,
> > > the BSD or LGPL (which both fit library level type
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The problem is that the GPL says "if you obey this license, you can do these
> > things that you otherwise can't do".
> > The OGL says "if you obey this license, you can do these things that are
> > otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt
Le Mer 24 Août 2005 06:25, Ian Eure a écrit :
> I do think the license should be fixed (or a more appropriate
> derivative created for PEAR packages), but I don't think the license
> in any way prohibits Debian packaging of PEAR or PEAR packages; nor
> has it stopped such packaging in the past. See
17 matches
Mail list logo
