r Debian" or "Debian Firefox"
> What can be Mozilla ? "for Debian" or "Debian" ?
Neither please. Debian packages should be easily modified by other
people, not just us. It doesn't achieve a great deal to replace their
trademark with our own.
-
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:15:05PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >
> >Neither please. Debian packages should be easily modified by other
> >people, not just us. It doesn't achieve a great deal to replace their
> >trademark with our o
likely to be
> difficult to swallow.
It's true though, so fuck 'em. Increased awareness of this can't be a
bad thing.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
out all the
trademarked stuff.
It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably free
work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the stripped
version instead.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/
ckage name *and* the command names.
>
> Uh-oh. And the community edition does not give permission to change
> the list of root CAs. 8-(
What sort of nonsense is that? What on earth are they trying to accom
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 12:59:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Alexander Sack:
> >>
> >> > Florian Weimer wrote:
>
molition of non-us,
it no longer applies.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:44:33 +0000 Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > It's not a major problem, because you can generate an unarguably free
> > work once by stripping it, and then everybody can modify the strip
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A name for the suite is hard.
Mozzarella.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><-
erver
full of tarballs for the latter - and indeed, this is all that many
projects do in the real world. I would also say from experience that
this is *more* useful, and easier to use, than bugzilla and cvs. But
what actually qualifies as satisfying a restriction such as this?
--
.'&#x
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM -0500, Dave Harding wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 12:59:08AM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > > Mind you, I don't think I'd necessarily have an issue with "To use
> > > this trademark, you mus
o need to throw away stuff written
by somebody who agrees to the new license. That does mean line-by-line
verification though, so it might not be practical (depending on
whether contributions are concentrated in some areas or uniformly
distributed).
--
.'&#x
rankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
be explicitly claimed.
Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
enough to license the damn thing properly either. That would cut out a
lot of the crap we see.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
system was never designed to cope with
this sort of thing. Given its position in history, the intent was
probably to continue to introduce new laws to stop this kind of crap
as it came up; that was the prevailing approach to legislation at the
time. But the political landscape shifte
ISOC and IETF
can do that. It appears that rfc 3667 does not refer to us at all (see
section 7.5).
Somebody should check whether older rfcs have a similar problem. Did
anybody actually grant a license to *us* to distribute them at all?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
on is, what _can_ we do?
Wait about a century for copyright to expire and hope that it doesn't
get extended again.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:14:41PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:48:40 +0000, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > The classical forms of intellectual prope
lectual
> > > property that I cited which doesn't create an asset, in the sense that
> > > it doesn't create any tradable right like copyright or patent.
> >
> > Trade secrets are routinely traded in the US, by means of contracts
> > and NDAs.
>
. So to take the example of libidn, which extract tables
> from 3454, this could mean it could stay in Debian anyway, I think.
> They mentioned 'sweat of the brow' though. Which jurisdictions allow
> for that kind of copyright?
Pretty much everybody but the US, unfortunatel
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:26:16AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:04:21 +0000, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > > > ... and was enacted in an environmen
e,
Not valid in many jurisdictions. Nothing that relies on this to be
free can be considered acceptable by Debian, or anybody else who works
internationally.
[Rest of the argument fails with this removed]
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I grow tired of your endless habit of redefining every term in sight
until it fits your whim, usually in defiance of your previous claims,
reality, or just plain logic. This is a waste of my time. Go away.
*plonk*
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
:
n. There probably
*aren't* any relevant patents in most cases.
If the copyright holder admits to actually having patents, *then* we
might have a problem. Casewise basis for this, as always.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | A
e
most *random* thing I've seen on -legal in months.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
may
> be a problem.
There is no law, not even trademark law, against drawing pictures of
somebody else's product. This whole affair is insane. Trademarks don't
even apply outside their domain, and the domain of the "HUMMER" does
not include artwork.
--
.
ware.
>
> I wasn't aware it was under review.
If we weren't so mind-numbingly inept at this sort of thing then we'd
have scrapped it long ago. Non-technical policy decisions in Debian
tend to take time in geological quantit
tp://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-07-11&res=l
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
somebody else's product.
This is all quite absurd.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s it
finally happened.
Copyright status on the old package (1.16) is unclear, but is probably
still the old license only (I vaguely recall the intent was to rewrite
all the code that wasn't relicensable), so it'll have to be updated to
the current upstream release (2.0) before it can go i
only relax restrictions, not add new ones.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
d one.
It may however not be legal to sell a bomb-making kit, even if none of
the components on their own would be a problem. Again this is
lawyer-bait; the exact status is uncertain.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
out linking and dependencies are just rules of
thumb to help figure out whether something is a derivative.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the libraries. Not the other
way around.
Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
when you build it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tried. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
them some nastygrams in the mail.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ementation of the API?
More irrelevancy. Using an API is just a method for utilising part of
another work. It may or may not be a derivative. This is just a
variation on the 'linker' noise.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andre
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:25:49PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >> Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
> >> >
&g
ons. Some
jurisdictions permit this, others simply ignore it. I don't remember
which.
I don't think it's not desperately important; collecting damages is
for corporations. All that really matters for free software is that
the courts enforce the license *now*; reparations for past a
ng it!
Some of those python scripts may be derivatives of GNU readline. Most
are probably not. Those that are must be licensed under the GPL. The
rest do not have to be. All this interpreter crud in between is
*irrelevant*. If the same program written in C would be
ently. The fact that it's part of the interpreter
just isn't relevant.
Given that eclipse runs on other JVMs, I'm inclined to expect that it
isn't a derivative of any of them, but I really have no idea. That's
the only question here which matters though.
--
h is nice, because lots of RFCs aren't
presently distributable at all - but it's not a license to modify, so that's
not very useful.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
h cannot be done automatically. The
> latter would make it technically impossible to generate the result from
> source, which would probably remove the requirement to do so. However, that
> just felt too much like going against the gist of the policy, so I chose not
> to do that.
Yes, t
y. Which brings us
back to clause 10 of the LGPL (6 of the GPL), which prohibits
additional restrictions.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpJ3pIFUCZcH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ne
convention and Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 106a of the United States
Code appear to be the relevant ones.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgps3s5BhNg4Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ies as libel. At least under UK law, which is
fairly strict on such matters. Nothing to do with copyright, and
that's the way it should remain.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
man variation really does mean "These things cannot be
fairly compared", then that would explain a lot of confusion I have
seen regarding this idiom.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
Debian. It belongs on your web server.
I do not think that the DFSG-freeness, or otherwise, of things which
are not and will not be in Debian are any concern of this list.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Li
h the GFDL. Replacing one non-free license with another
which is less non-free, but still non-free, is not useful to us.
As for compromises: no. Free or fuck off.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpyeHWeNHRpq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>
> === CUT HERE ===
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgptAA1BzrGPi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
stribute the software at all.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpF0C758AoDL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
why. This is not the hallmark of a good manual].
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpEOx30kQtrU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
o work with gcj. That
will break in *really* weird ways on occasion.
>If, say, mswordview was
> the only option, but it deleted every table in the documentation, is
>the documentation still free?
What if the java program still works, but attempts to write files to
disk fail?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpptYwrCkJ0f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e feel the
same way. As such it probably won't make quorum even if it gets to the
GR stage (I certainly wouldn't bother voting on something that
pointless).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpga1TQ9kKt5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e code at all. If we can't legally combine
GPLed code with glibc, that would be pretty disasterous.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpgadZL2A5G9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The co
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:22:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The co
ould therefore be able to take any such component and work with it
under the terms of the GPL. This does not hold for the sunrpc code.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpL5wIB9LCjV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
x27;. Just like free
> programs which require non-free programs to function. (If it's a
> *legal* requirement, it's non-free, but I've never heard of such a case.)
Various forms of DRM-crippled audio, video, and text do this.
--
.''`. ** Debi
y have to obey
_one_ of them. (Note that this is distinct from combining multiple
sequences of bytes under different licenses into a single work - then
you do have to obey all of them)
Under the GPL, I can take version 1.1, delete the first two stanzas,
replace $word with aj and $worduc with AJ -
e code, and behaves like
> > source code.
>
> Yeah, but its purpose isn't the same as source code.
Without justification, this assertion is invalid.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgptKSY95oTpY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the G
ing them for now as that isn't directly
relevant].
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpZkqw6R0DwZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
them (even if that means
removing the entire manual). If they were not, then we would almost
certainly be content to let them stay.
[0] To modify the work for any purpose
[1] The forced inclusion of GNU propaganda
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** |
u have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpLop9tvLP7e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
clairvoyant a thoughts.
You don't get to play word games with "derivative work"; it is
explicitly defined by copyright law. Both of these constitute
derivation.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Su
reason.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp2LUrTbmb4c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> > "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> > th
s after the
> last update to the database, which forbids *complete* reproduction but
> explicitely allows unlimited quoting from the database, as long as you
> mention your sources.
>
> At least that's how things are in Belgium; there could be little
> differences in other EU
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notion
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
unaware of the
actions of A and B.
Other jurisdictions will vary.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpJaJZLeoPmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t low
prices. There are dozens of similar, smaller operations.
In all signatories to the Berne convention, any attempt to import such
products should result in the goods being confiscated by customs. In
the US, importing or knowingly retailing them is also a federal
offence.
he 4-clause BSD license requires you to add text to any
advertising materials you may produce. Nothing to do with the content
of the program.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpMZOdgX66Kk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I want to, so long as
I am quoting you accurately.
I can even misquote you if I'm creating satire.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgps8pK6XHGCz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
er it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> creator to control the creation of copies of the work.
More to the point: this law is specific to databases, and does not
apply to computer programs. And even for databases, it's hard to make
it stick.
--
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe
reeds? I have a feeling l.d.o
> would simply explode!
One could argue that by definition, anything Debian distributes is
non-secondary. I don't really want to go there, though.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpsC8hB23QFC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
st free
software licenses do not contain termination clauses. Most commercial
licenses only permit termination if you return the goods to the
supplier.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpQRC2S9BAUw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:49:18PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> >>There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
> >> derivative work, a
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:56:59PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> >>No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> >> software _at_ _all_. No w
'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
> wider audience, which means we have more people to convince.
I'll expand upon that: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
wider audience, many of whom are stupid or insane.
--
.''
few months.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp4t7CH2J4wb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
and release managers. Wrap up well,
> as there's no telling what else is lurking in there.
Yes there is. I can predict with a fair amount of certainty that there
is a lot of porn lurking in there.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
rating the Sun
RPC code into a work, distributing that to a second person, who
subsequently refines it further" is clearly a derivative work of the
original Sun RPC code. It's not independant creation at all. These are
therefore not two possible interpretations under copyright.
--
.
t;right to quiet
> enjoyment" that is a fairly unrelated legal phrase. Probably there's
> a better one.
I'd go back to "use".
I don't consider it free documentation unless I can print it out, bin
be equivalent, if not exactly the same.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpv3SLIlm1D7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of hypothetical scenarios where it was not copied, regardless
of how many he "changes". Any one of them demonstrates how the license
is incompatible with the GPL.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp8H11b8324K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Yes, this is inaccurate. You have precisely the same problem with
documentation. You cannot take a printed page and accurately reproduce
the latex which generated it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgplbHBUj8YTR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nclusion here is that copyright sucks and we'd be much better
off without it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpcaYQorWsyq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
k if you
> want to be bulletproof.
Don't forget to pick up "How to lie with statistics" while you're at
it; nobody should be allowed to listen to statistics without having
read it at least once.
--
.''`. ** D
st notoriously forked
projects in history.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpHtW9JvLYYy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
fore aren't a concern.
So background research is needed for anything released under it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpRuzcPomgRE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
at they might intend to create some DFSG-free
things with it - but it's also likely they intend to create some
things which aren't.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp0liAxzqiKQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
;'`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgprQ7rgvvc1R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
vailable, you can use that instead. Which one people
decide to actually use on their systems is not your concern.
Needless to say, you cannot play silly buggers with this and argue
your way around the GPL. It's either a derivative work (becaus
ian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpD4RuHKVM2J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
f the data set. However, I'm only familiar with the UK
implementation; other parts of Europe may differ. It's the French
version in particular which matters here anybody?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgptKg73lTJCI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp75XPuSbgdd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Politics can and often does determine this, rather than the
legal system
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpvEh5h72nxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
filing a law suite
> against a OSL licensed software.
This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
There might be other reasons we don't like this license, of c
> policies might be.
And then "People who do not agree with me are treating us harshly"
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpZ6oU8a5dkN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
201 - 300 of 774 matches
Mail list logo
