[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
>It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
>removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not
DSFG-compliant, anyway.
-
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
* Ottavio Caruso:
I'd like to post some Debian disk images, created from original
Debian packages, to some sites via http or bittorrent. What legal
obligations have I or the hosting site? If the packages are all from
the
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:40:39 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
[...]
> >My understanding of the GPL is that you must make the sources
> >available, on your server.
> >
> WRONG (imho).
>
> *IF* Ottavio is a private indivi
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >* Ottavio Caruso:
> >
> >> I'd like to post some Debian disk images, created from original
> >> Debian packages, to some sites via http or bittorrent. What
legal
> >> obligations have I or t
Hi,
I saw the swift reaction on bug #276302: [Sun License for JavaCC] which
has been an issue for years (upstream claims it is free software under a
modern bsd license, but some files had additional restriction). Getting
a real answer, an acknowledgment that this is a problem with regard to
the DF
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
>> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
>> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
> There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses ar
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 18:18, Tom Marble a écrit :
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> >> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> >> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG
Tom Marble Sun.COM> writes:
> Until very, very recently this hasn't even been possible as
> we are fully aware that NetBeans has had various "non-free"
> dependencies (which would have blocked it's inclusion in "main").
> Thus the primary rationale for liberating javac and JavaHelp
> as part of th
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 à 11:18 -0600, Tom Marble a écrit :
> Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects
> that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like
> accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE.
> The purpose of packaging NetBeans for D
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Please note that we don't accept software in Debian just because it is
> useful, but also because it is free.
Understood.
> That said, I agree with some of the arguments given about the
> choice-of-venue clause. It is a bad clause, but I don't think it makes a
> piece of
10 matches
Mail list logo
