Walter Landry wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
>>> Looking at google I see a lot of "Summary - non-free" and "Not really
>>> non-free"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
debian-legal is just a mailing list, so it cannot have a position about
anything.
My position is that the MPL does not violate the DFSG, but it's not
obvious if Debian can satisfy the requirement of distributing
non-current sou
Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL
> >> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
> >>> Looking at google I see a l
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
> > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
> > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
> > widely available,
>
> Why does it matter whet
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
> >
> >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> >reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
> [...]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
> > > > > p
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:21:07 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
> > misleading) credit?
>
> "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and others"
I'm really losing you here... :-(
You are
Useful piece of information for those concerned about using open-ended
"or later" licensing on their software: the "upgrade clause" in the
LGPL2.1, clause 3, allows the use of GPL version 2 or later:
> 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
> License instead of this
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
> context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
> specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license).
That's an open question, and necessarily jurisdicti
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > > The subject of this sentence is you.
> > >
> > > The subject of this sentence is not "technical measures".
> >
> > The object of "use" is "technical measures to obstruct o
Hi folks,
I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
described below.
The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
forwarding it to this list because I've not (yet) received a res
Ed Hill writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
> Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
> described below.
>
> The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
> forwarding it to this list becau
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
> maintainer to sort out license incom
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:18:37AM -0500, Ed Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> > package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> > what you suggested in the bug commen
Ed Hill writes:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> > package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> > what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
> > maintaine
Ed Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm asking because the main upstream author (Michael Jennings) seems to
>> think that the Fedora Guidelines (which are in some ways quite similar
>> to the much-older DSC) are "silly rules which discriminate against
>> packages for no real reason":
>>
>> ht
16 matches
Mail list logo
