Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All:
>
> Let me start by repeating the message that Simon and I gave
> to you at Debconf: there is every reason for us to be friends
> and working with you is very important for Sun.
>
> Please consider:
>
> - We consider the FAQ [2] to be an accurate repr
> John Goerzen wrote:
>> Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look
>> and it looks good to me.
>
> This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though:
>
>> Linking:
>> Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL,
>> or with any non-GPLed
1. I'm sorry but I don't use IE and I have not that checkbox at the bottom... 2. I repeat: it's unlogical to value through a software definition a thing that is not software. You can say: "I want value this music on the basis of this software definition". OK. Also I can say: "I want value this wi
On 5/21/06, Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. I'm sorry but I don't use IE and I have not that checkbox at the
bottom...
Well dump Yahoo Mail. If you can't switch off HTML, it sucks. I am
getting irritated enough by HTML mail that soon I will start
blacklisting.
2. I repeat: it's unlo
Ok, you don't know related rights. http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/about_collective_mngt.html#P31_2900 Related rights are the rights that belong to the performers, the producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations in relation to their performances, phonograms and broadcasts respectively.
1. Stop posting HTML.
2. You != Debian. Debian standards of freedom are defined by the
Debian Free *Software* Guidelines and that is basically set in stone.
On 5/21/06, Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, you don't know related rights.
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/about_collective_mngt.
Ok, you have not arguments (and you don't know related rights). End of discussion for me. MaxAndrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Stop posting HTML.2. You != Debian. Debian standards of freedom are defined by theDebian Free *Software* Guidelines and that is basically set in stone.On 5/21
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
>> the
>> following?
>>
>> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
>> "Termination for IP or Patent Action".
>>
>> - I change the manual
On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:18:44 -0500 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which
> is three times the usual examination,
It may be three times the usual examination, but whe
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:59:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from
> > > and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts
> > > and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in
> > > con
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
> three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to
> examine the lic
From: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trademark:
The name Bacula is a registered trademark.
I assume there is an implicit trademark licence.
In this case an implicit licence is probably better than an explicit
one, solely because it is virtually impossible to word a trademark licence
to allow
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which
> > is three times the usual examination,
>
> It may be three times the usual examination, but when the lice
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Sonntag, den 21. Mai 2006:
> PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we
> do great things.
You can get applause if you do great things, not if you do harm to debian and
opensource.
As I said, the license has to be changed.
Alex
--
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:18:44 -0500 Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
>> myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which
>> is three times the usual examination,
> I
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Raphael,
> In that case, ftpmasters accepted it, end of discussion. You HAVE to
> accept decisions of delegates within Debian, that's how we can effectively
> work.
Nope, you don't have to accept decisions made by delegates. You have
the option to ov
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 13:38 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> It may be three times the usual examination, but when the license is not
> *clearly* suitable for the archive under consideration (non-free, in
> this case), the general recommendation is to check with debian-legal,
> AFAICT.
But th
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 12:34 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> You are not responsible to make that decision in Debian, ftpmasters are.
> Criticizing ftpmasters won't help them changing their minds.
If not, it has to help changing the ftpmasters.
> Thanks to everyone who worked (even privatel
Hi!
Le Dimanche 21 Mai 2006 19:34, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we
> do great things.
I know I shouldn't, but I was really upset by your answer.
I'm happy that people speak up and claim their fear with this licence, an
On Sun, May 21, 2006 21:18, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when
>> we do great things.
>
> What great things? Taking irresponsible decisions that expose the whole
> project to legal actions from Sun? I don't feel like thanking anyone for
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that
> to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others
> handled it? Please give the right example.
I'm afraid I have more interesting things
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> I know I shouldn't, but I was really upset by your answer.
You shouldn't be upset.
> I'm happy that people speak up and claim their fear with this licence, and
> no,
This is OK. They can ask questions and have a right to know why ftpmasters
accepted
On 5/21/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The precise terms are to be found in the license: as long as the license
> is unchanged or unamended (with legally binding additions), the issues
> should not be considered solved...
No one has addressed my question about estoppel. My guess
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that
> > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others
> > handled it? Please give the righ
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are
> interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to
> work on that.
Not if it hurts the project. And it does.
> The license is good en
Le Dim 21 Mai 2006 23:04, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by
> removing java!
just do it, shall we ?
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO
Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 23:42 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit :
> It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
> other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to grok
> was that Debian isn't as much a "technical organization" as a
> "social organization" that happens t
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to
> > work on that.
>
> Not if it hurts the project. And it does.
You think it does. Others do. Others don't. I don't. Start a GR if you
think the ftpmasters are wrong. There'
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:04 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> You think it does. Others do. Others don't. I don't. Start a GR if you
> think the ftpmasters are wrong. There's no point in telling everyone that
> you don't agree just for the sake of it.
I think this is going to happen.
> How c
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are
> > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to
> > work on
Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 00:55, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some
> > > people are interested in java in non-fr
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> If you have a reason to believe that the ftpmasters have *misjudged* the
> liability involved,
This is the whole point of the discussion.
> or you are approaching this as a mirror operator who is
> not comfortable with the license
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Sonntag, den 21. Mai 2006:
*snip*
> The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions).
> There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them
> to enhance even more the license. Such a constructive behaviour would put
> us in a
On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:17:52 -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> If Sun doesn't fix the license (and I don't think it is our work to fix
>
> The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions).
> There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them
> to enhanc
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > If you have a reason to believe that the ftpmasters have *misjudged* the
> > liability involved,
> This is the whole point of the discussion.
Not that I can see.
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:09:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> At least so far as I understand it, the ftp-masters (i.e., the people who
> did this check) are the people responsible for verifying and checking
> licenses in uploaded packages and debian-legal exists as an advisory body
> for the ftp
On 5/19/06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> > (b) the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and
> > such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs
> > under the control of your Operating System and designing,
> > developing
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the word "estoppel" only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving
> from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the
> way you think it does in any of the other jurisdictions Debian or any of
> its mirrors may come in con
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 23:42 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit :
>> It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
>> other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to grok
>> was that Debian isn't as much a "technical organization" as a
>> "socia
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 00:55, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > > Good, but you shouldn't decide w
Jacob,
http://au.geocities.com/inclose3993611/
Osvaldo Cain, Ref. wav1639474
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First and foremost, please stop top posting. We Are here to hold
discussions about licencing, and it's very difficult to do so when
your comments are wholy separated from the context in which they
belong. You also should stop using HTML; a gmail account or similar
should enable you to do this if yo
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:17:52PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I'm afraid I have more interesting things to do than helping non-free
> > software developers to get their non-free crap in the non-free archive.
>
> Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are
> intere
> the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they*
> are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these
> packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at
> all. They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:03:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be
> affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their
> getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the
Who shou
45 matches
Mail list logo
