On Saturday 03 June 2006 16:57, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's
> position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
> on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
> non-free, and that is also
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> Too many excuses. All inadequate.
>
> It is past time that the covert actions of the "small cabal"
> were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
> relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant
> written leg
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list.
As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is.
--
An
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 17:39 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
> even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list.
Despite all of that,
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Too many excuses. All inadequate.
> >
> > It is past time that the covert actions of the "small cabal"
> > were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
>
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
> on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
> non-free, and that is also Sun's position.
Just for clarification, a position expressed by
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> Too many excuses. All inadequate.
>
> It is past time that the covert actions of the "small cabal"
> were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
> relevant written promises from Sun (if an
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
> a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
> on this mailing list.
Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who m
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> >> Too many excuses. All inadequate.
> >> It is past time that the covert actions of the "small cabal"
> >> were openly reviewed.
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
> > distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
> > all export and i
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
> something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew
> Donnellan'
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:49:50PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> The ipv6calc upstream tarball database directory contains a README saying:
>
> Because of unknown license issues, the database files aren't
> included in source tarball (cleanup by "make distclean"), but
> will be retrieved on "make"
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > be posted to debian-legal.
>
> For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He d
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the
> > problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least
> > damaging route to go for, imho.
>
> You can say that if you like, but please be aware tha
On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> > maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
> > even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-le
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
>> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
>> > distribution of the Subject Software
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I see no ground in the Debian constitution to claim this is "Debian's
position". Being the ftp-masters decisision does not make it the
"Debian's position".
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian d
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>
> I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're
> right and not being one means you're wrong?
>
More like, being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored and
not being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored (for a
complete
On 6/4/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> >> Too many excuses. All inadequate.
> >> It is past time that the covert ac
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
indemnify Sun in certain circumstances should not have happened without
consulting with the board of SPI and SPI's attorney. **Regardless** of
the particular opinion on whether or not this is a legal risk, this
consultation should h
#include
* Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]:
> >For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> >maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
> >something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew
> >Donnella
> AT> For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer,
> AT> doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
> AT> applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the
> AT> debian-legal list.
>
> So what?
I would like to request everyone to think before post
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards
> improving the current license
There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here
already, I guess people are currently just waiting for the fixe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
>clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
>
>Am I correct in making this assumption?
No. As long as you believe that the notice on the project web site is
truthfully
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
>> a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
>> on this mailing list.
>Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing
>lists live?
For the r
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
>> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
>> even seem to be a regular participant on
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > > I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner.
> >
> > ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the
> > archive with the broken license. I think we shou
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
Am I correct in making this assumption?
No. As long as you believe that the notice on the proj
On 6/4/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]:
> >For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> >maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
> >something like 5 posts to debian-
And which part of the message you quote as an example is the inappropriate one?
AT> For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer,
AT> doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
AT> applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the
AT> debian-legal
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006, Michael Spang wrote:
> I have created a package [0] for PyGaim. Their SourceForge project
> page says that PyGaim is distributed under the GPL. There is no
> mention of this, however, in the source release.
This is a bug; whether it would preclude distributing it in Debian is
Michael Spang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
> >> clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
> >>
> >> Am I correct in making this assum
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:30:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
> >> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-main
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> His message was polite, and didn't seem like a demand (despite the use
> of the word "cabal").
The "Too many excuses. All inadequate" bit was polite?
> His request was quite reasonable, and I heartily agree with it.
>
> His message also was much more th
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006, Michael Spang wrote:
I have created a package [0] for PyGaim. Their SourceForge project
page says that PyGaim is distributed under the GPL. There is no
mention of this, however, in the source release.
This is a bug; whether it would preclude dis
Walter Landry wrote:
I would still get clarification from the author. Relying on the
License field may give you legal cover, but it may still not match the
pygaim author's intentions. The author may not have noticed that
field, filled it in while in a hurry and not paying attention, etc.
Agr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>> For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
>> maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
>> something l
Javier SOLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> It could take the form of a warning message when you upload files...
> "All information submitted will be considered by clicking in ok you..."
I am irritated when applications try to dictate terms to me.
Also, if we effectively give people no choice, we
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 06:23 +0100, Carlos Correia a écrit :
> > How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who
> > has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts?
>
> What a big troll you are...
>
> - From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to kn
39 matches
Mail list logo
