On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
> >> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
> >> special libgcc
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
>
>
> > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not
> > subsist in thi
rt to "say WHAT you
want, not HOW you want it" - licenses should be specifications, not
solutions).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
iarise themselves with the
relevant laws and ensure that relevant queries are raised. This is an
instance of the "hire a good lawyer" principle.
All of this is, of course, subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in
which the case is heard. They may prohibit or place constraints on
choice-of
on-lawyer write a license, and should be easily corrected.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation
> > that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to
> &g
s, but it does seem to be the standard way to make the
> disclaimer.
I believe that there was one completely stupid precedent set along
these lines somewhere, which is responsible for the knee-jerk
capitalisation that lawyers practise nowadays.
--
.''`. ** D
usr/share/doc/$package/CREDITS".
Reiser is firmly on the other side *because* this is prohibited.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
opy documentation (it's actually a pretty good license, as
proprietary ones go).
It was probably rubber-stamped on. If you ask the relevant people then
they might (eventually) give you a free license.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
> > following text, is not okay.
> >
> > That one neatly and clearly c
ed restriction in a way that is not specific to
patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is
it still an acceptable restriction?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
there already. A free license may not
require that the author divulge his identity to anybody.
I'm refraining from serious analysis of issues of wording at this
stage, since anything I propose fixes for will doubtless get mangled
again later. But on general principle, using latin letters for section
headings on a list this long is probably a bad idea; we'll wind up
extending it to about 28 items if you do that. How about roman numerals?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would be a valid sh script to
> > run the "w" command.
>
> Wow! TSSSITHOCS!
> (The shortest shell-script in the history of computer science)
> ;-)
No, I believe that is the same as what will probably be the last
"smallest quine" winner of the IOCC
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 07:31:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I'd like to append something like the following:
> >
> > The license may not place further constraints on the naming or
> > labell
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> > >
> > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> > >
the charges, then there's nothing you can do. john already
> violated your licence. he'll laugh at you if you insist on the legal
> venue choice.
If you want a license that favours the author(s) over the community
then you want a proprietary license. Free ones don'
an say that choice of venue clauses are
bad, while choice of law clauses are okay.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
igned the
> copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.
As a general rule, international copyright assignment is a bitch.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
t;
> > Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-)
>
> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
with those
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal
MMS still in main?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html
Threads on debian-user don't mean a damn thing.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
> > > in those licenses, the problem being that the GP
decent set of features. Bootstrapping involves a bit of
cross-compiling and a bit of manual scamming.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of starscream.
m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there are plenty of other
emulators for it out there. There's probably something which could
replace it, resulting in a package which is both distributable and
DFSG-free (given that mpg123 is easy to replace).
-
n-free. That won't change. Future versions of the licenses will be
considered the same as any license.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> >No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
> >derivative work of starscream.
> >
>
> Not even something like what I mentioned in my o
d have gens postinst call "ld" at install-time? The two
> packages would contain the relevant .o files... and would techinically
> be seperate packages.
Intent is what counts. You can't try to find looph
ivative
> work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you from
> distributing it.
Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant
win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which
m not personally inclined
to analyse a license which is clearly non-free for other reasons; it's
time-consuming.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ary. Probably as part of a security update.
So the theory holds, but it *could* be a problem. Fortunately it won't
be our problem.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
gt; /usr/share/doc sufficient?
Yes. I'm undecided on whether that requirement is DFSG-free.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ce of freedom is eternal idiots"?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
g to grab
everything they can, to improve the corporate bottom line.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
o be considered acceptable.
> >
> > The GPL has an option for just providing an offer to provide source on
> > request.
>
> "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some
> variant of it) test.
N
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:23:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some
> > > variant of it) test.
> >
> > Nobody on a de
looking to get upstream to remove
non-license text from their license; there is a whole truckload of
provisos here that you shouldn't really have to deal with.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ren't the same problem. The same clause happens to
fail the dissident test because it requires disclosure of identity.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><
se
> whether the clause is "enforceable". Which court decides that? That
> depends on whether the clause is "enforceable". So where do we start?
Law school.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
onable assurance to our users that
everything in main is free, we have to take the most pessimistic
interpretation, and see if that is free.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is no such
clause.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
n the thread for details)
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >
> >> One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
&
need to edit *that*" one.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
y afflicted by
copyright lawsuits, and will probably settle out of court.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
o travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to
defend themselves.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
> respect of the software released, people can very easily sneak in
> patent time bombs into the codebase.
Sucks to be American. Nothing we can do about it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andr
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:44:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages,
> >not licenses.
>
> I see. Were you absent from
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>I didn't find the reference given in the draft summar
state and federal
> courts within that District with respect to this License. The
> application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
> International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.
And this one is no good either.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/
some film or other that satirised it rather well:
A group of people were driving along a road in Canada, in a lorry with
"FUCK CANADA!" spray-painted on the side. They were stopped by the
police and told to add a French transla
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:19:56PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following
> > > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they ha
his is okay, and
(b) it doesn't have to be a dump of *your* cartridge either - you just
have to own one.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:12:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >
> >>> That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of
> >>> game console emu
individual
freedom being significantly impaired. I think the word you want is
"totalism" (as in "totalitarian").
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to # {BEGIN|END} BPS-TAGGED BLOCK, would that satisfy
> the objection?
Along with an explicit statement that this isn't part of the license,
at least.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffie
d 2.3.15, taking away the
> official version number.
What the license *says* is that a fork must retain the "2.3.15"
version prefix for the rest of time. That's no good.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
directories). Are they still covered by copyright
> law in that case?
No. There is no relationship between copyright and effort. Copyright
does not subsist in a list of facts.
They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andr
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
>
> > They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
>
> ... which are not "Copyright" or "Intel
ually preferred.
The clause is basically backwards. It should say that you must provide
it *without* "any technological measures (...)" (but you may also
provide it with them), which is roughly what the GPL says.
That's disregarding the vagueness. As usual the GPL said it better.
it of free
software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
artificial barriers to forking is a *bad* thing.
--
.''`. **
e give
> "if supplied". But it's not explicit, and I think having a licensor able
> to effectively revoke the license at will would make it non-free.
Revokable licenses, for any reason other than non-compliance, are
indeed non-free.
It does sound rather fucked up, and might
illa project are trying to do with their
trademarks/branding?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
algorithm, related only by the fact that they are both LZ78
derivatives, and that two of the authors had surnames beginning with
the same letter. I assume that it really is LZW that is used in gif,
and that unisys haven't been stringing us along for the past few
years.
--
.''`. **
ed, or complex patches from the BTS
>have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright
>holders.
We can't even find all the current maintainers.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
if there is no license, the warranty disclaimer is invalid, and
statutory warranty applies).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> always-permitted uses of the copyrighted work? If so, there's no problem
> in the UK either.
I think this ventures into unexplored legal territory. I doubt it's
actually a problem, though.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suff
y are. The conventional approach to
political dissidents in China is to have them quietly disappear.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the stuff
that doesn't need discussing *again* by summarising it up front.
Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:26:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> What's silly or unrealistic about it? The totalitarian state in
> >> question
ce anything else
would be participation, which would be self-defeating.
All I can think of to say to them is: sod off.
(There's a third group who don't care enough to discuss these issues
and are willing to submit to the consensus of
emark
> rights in documentation?
What rights, and how are you endangering them such that they need to
be preserved?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><-
not trademark a dictionary word. Microsoft *lost* that lawsuit.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ciation
> with which they are associated.
"General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
--
.''`. ** Debian
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:40:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> >> Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
> >> that. I think you meant
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:43:23PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >
> >"General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
> >("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
for a work classified as
"literary". Trying to claim that it's necessary to "address" other
issues is the classic introduction to a non-free license.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> >> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
> >> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
> >> issue.
> >
ts us from
including the work in Debian, since we cannot realistically satisfy
this requirement. That means it's got to be non-free.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
work, I
am not at all convinced that it is possible to write a license with a
restriction that closes the "remote application hole".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
censes/bsd-license.php.
> So they are acceptable for MySQL FOSS exception.
What, even the SSLeay license? It's not a BSD license, and fuck knows
what "compatible with OpenSource Initiative criteria" is supposed to
mean.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
x27;s not like there's a
shortage of space.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9--so that it's
> only used in #2. (s/program/work/ the rest, perhaps.)
Special-casing ELF files is nuts. Why the fuck try to dodge providing
source? What is this supposed to accomplish?
--
e for public use.
This is unprecedented, and therefore lawyer-bait. Pretty much any
stupid decision is possible, depending on who bribed their way into
the courthouse at the time.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :
e MIT and 4-clause BSD licenses. Somebody
was on the really good crack when they did that.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ip
it out.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;ve never actually seen one that worked without being grossly
overbearing to the point of being non-free.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
not written in that style and nobody really
knows how to do it; furthermore, that road leads to an endless arms
race.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
se things
were illegal to start with. They do not become *more* illegal because
the license says something about them.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
dable
> (see Francesco's message).
This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for
distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux
).
Which is quite gratuitous.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:59:45PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >>However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
> >>"Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
> >>which are
s" when linking to a library for which only one
implementation of the API exists, and usually "no" when multiple such
implementations exist.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
software that was
infringing. Not the same thing.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
vocal minority, and (b) it's just
FUD. The form is "I don't like your conclusion, and I haven't thought
about it, so I'm going to blame you".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that tellin
e to come up which actually invoked the patent clauses;
we never really pursued that very far.
Note that this license is obsolete, and nobody who is not IBM should
use it. It has been replaced by the CPL, which is more generic and a
bit less silly.
--
.''`. **
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:58:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
> > > distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and sayi
erested, and therefore it's stupid to
complain that they weren't informed; they had the choice, and *they*
chose not to.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
en five minutes, not weeks and hundreds
of mails. The job of a maintainer is to fix their package, not waste
everybodies time arguing that they shouldn't fix it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
planning on
seeing it happen around the end of the year, starting in autumn.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1 - 100 of 774 matches
Mail list logo
