Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:02:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the
> > project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian
> > but other people generally do. Why
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
> > do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
> > also be avoided if we want readers to take the spi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
> > components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
> > purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
> > "component" of the "system" a
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
> non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and di
> Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
> Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rath
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> > idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
> > :)
>
> There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to o
(Not on the list, please CC me on replies)
hey,
ia64 cpus have dropped hardware i386 support in exchange for non-free
software emulation, known as "IA-32 EL". I took a cursory look at the
license, and I'm wondering if its even viable to upload to non-free.
The text of this license is available h
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:42:10PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
>
> * Section 4: "Updates" requires "commerically reasonable efforts" to
>supply our "customers" with updates that Intel distributes. If this
>means we cannot say no to an update from Intel, that does not sound
>reasonable
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
> > are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
>
> Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not a
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > one's ideals.
>
> Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> distributing the obligatory license
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, consider DFSG §10:
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of
> licenses that we consider "free".
>
> Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
> (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > > one's ideals.
> >
> > Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> > distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts"
> to be "violating the social contract".
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
> "not ... something the social contract cares about". That's not at all
> clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
> promise, which has no
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:42:10PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> >
> > * Section 4: "Updates" requires "commerically reasonable efforts" to
> >supply our "customers" with updates that Intel distributes. If this
> >means
Hello,
In the conditions paragraph below, I am wondering whether:
(1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
"corresponding" in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
(2) In the last sentence, does the phrase "must reflect all
modifications" mean that all past, present, and fu
Package: esniper
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.3
[Cc:d to debian-legal]
Hi,
It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all
(probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I
suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at
least thi
severity 420686 normal
thanks
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Sami Liedes wrote:
> 2.2.3 says "Packages must be placed in _non-free_ if they are not
> compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal
> issues that make their distribution problematic." (I expected to find
> something saying
Hi Sami!
You wrote:
> It's not obvious it is legal to distribute this software at all
> (probably it either is fit for main or unfit for non-free too). I
> suggest a review on debian-legal, since I'm not well versed in (at
> least this area of) law. I found nothing about this in debian-legal
> ar
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law
> and Debian is not bound to it.
Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if
you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind o
20 matches
Mail list logo
