hen it would be a simple matter for him to let a proxy (or
> pseudonym) file an ITP and formally request a summary of the license.
True, but I still recognize a difference between our doing such a thing
deliberately, and being manipulated into doing it by others.
--
G. B
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> | For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached
> | this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD
>
wingly distribute Middleman in contravention of its
license. We would like to distribute Middleman under the terms of its
license, but have found we cannot do so. We look forward to working
with Middleman's author(s) and copyright holder(s) to rectify this
situation.
[1] e.g., if we are pr
concerned about Microsoft getting copyright laws
changed in the U.S. and other countries such that software distributed
in source form at no charge is forbidden from disclaiming warranty, and
perhaps even robbed of copyright protection altogether.
--
G. Branden Robinson
7;ll be happy to blast the copyright info
> > to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather,
> > consider this a *plonk*.
Sadly, the blather in this instance seems to be coming from the package
maintainer.
Rick, I think you owe Andrew an apology.
have objected to your position, but then I thought of some
of the usages of "carry", such as:
* I am carrying some parasites.
* He is carrying a virus.
Given the metaphorical uses of "parasite" and "virus" we've seen in the
Free Software community, th
y independently copyright works, and it is an
unreasonable arrogation of power over the work of others to attempt to
control their speech in this fashion.
Any license that attempts to so is fatally defective from a DFSG
standpoint.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If you're handso
nical with OSI on this
particular point.
[1] In fact, I can only think of one case, but that's a different
flamewar.
[2] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00822.html
--
G. Brand
fail the DFSG either
way, but I find it a little distasteful to imply that the GNU GPL was
intended to promote nationalist prejudice.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e seen here:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
>
> Can anyone spot anything else in the draft that might
> keep us from being able to link things against libclientmysql12?
I suspect we'll still have to assess the linkages on a case-by-case
basi
a broader
> license grant than the general grant for the 'documentation'...
Where's the permission to distribute modified copies? I see no
"and/or". This is the UWash/PINE problem.
> > If you are viewing this information softcopy, the photographs a
est, but I personally would not go to
court with only inductive reasoning on my side if I could help it.
--
G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my
Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As Alan Dershowitz put it, "rights come from wrongs". We generally can
only enumerate the rights we are supposed to enjoy because people are
always coming up with creative new ways to fuck over their fellow human
being.
I've long been uncomfortable with the I
m tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this point as dispositive.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig.
ht
IBM.
It would be nice if they'd work with the community in developing the
successor to the IBMPL/CPL.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If we believe absurdities, we
Debian GNU/Linux | shall commit atrocities.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
men!
Don't you bastards make me quote Che Guevara and James Madison in the
same message!
--
G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a
Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | test wo
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:59:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> > documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as
> > such from the document.
>
> Or for adding a constraint that
y 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this point as dispositive.
>
> Yeah, I think I've pretty much exhausted everything I can think of to
> say in defense of that license.
Not all licenses are deserving of
ftware in
the past falls under the control of a new organization that is hostile
to us, but we should be careful and deliberate about such exceptions.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
cable in all of Sweden; local
governments do not have shared jurisdiction on the matter.
Disclaimer: This is all to the best of my understanding and knowledge. I am
not a lawyer.
Hope that helps and good luck with your work on the issue.
--
Alex Nordstrom
- End forwarded message -
--
G. Brand
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> >documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
> >st
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:50:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> > >
ed there in the first place.
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:56:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm not going to be able to regard this as a credible claim without a
> > citation.
>
> Here's Bruce's first draft of the DFSG (which expanded on what
>
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems
> > > stronger.
> >
> > That's a problem,
Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We have imposed that requirement upon ourselves[1]. We should not be
> > forced into it. That we have to distribute the copyright notice and
> > license statement, which is a reasonable requirement, is not the same
initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification
in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain
available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of
the initial developer.
[5] http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008
[6
ould be. It was obviously a lot of hard work to prepare this
document, and reading it was like a trip down the debian-legal flamewar
memory lane, with the outcomes neatly boiled down.
I think your work on this document is a valuable service to the Project.
--
G. Branden Robinson
s asserting this is wrong, and may be being deliberately
deceptive.
There is a distinction between asking for credit for one's work, and
requiring that those who use your work pay homage to in you some
particular way.
--
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communist
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > How does the ASF interpret the clause?
>
> I don't know, but if you think this clause is ambiguous enough that
> clarification from Apache
ed --
particularly given that it is GPL-incompatible and RT is deeply
commingled with many Perl modules licensed under the GNU GPL.
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
[EMAIL
to-in-main, the expiration of the
LZW patent, etc.).
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat Test"
or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) holder
does not get to make up his or her own laws?
--
G. Branden Robinson
Entitling the modified form with a clearly distinct name, or a
prominent notice that the work was modified, also satisfies this
requirement. Machine-interpreted versioning or interface information
is not bound by this requirement.
Would you like a bug report opened against the xinet
ttp://www.latex-project.org/ltnews/ltnews16.pdf
[8] file:///usr/share/doc/tetex-base/lppl.txt.gz
[9] file:///usr/share/doc/tetex-base/changelog.Debian.gz
--
G. Branden Robinson| "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux | The o
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
> ...
> > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. "The licens
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
> >
ut individual
> freedom being significantly impaired. I think the word you want is
> "totalism" (as in "totalitarian").
I'm deliberately trying to come up with a catchy and emotive name for the
test.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realiz
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
> >otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:40:01AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
> >> Test"
> >> or the "Dictator Test&
tFAQ
--
G. Branden Robinson|I am sorry, but what you have
Debian GNU/Linux |mistaken for malicious intent is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |nothing more than sheer
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II
si
set by this; we
> didn't accept it for KDE, so why is it okay for the kernel?
Because some folks have to have someone else to blame for their own
ignorance.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what
Debian GNU/Linux
riminal copyright infringement
suit). UWash later changed the wording of the license in question.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Do not attempt to disprove the
Debian GNU/Linux | four-colour theorem on your flag!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Jos
w up an error message.
In summary, the decision to put emulators that are largely or completely
inoperable without supplementary materials (from non-free, or not provided
by Debian at all), is not wholly compelled by the "100% Free Software"
portion of the Social Contract. It's also motiva
we just need to dig it out. I just don't really know where to start looking.
When I was but an egg in the Debian Project, back in early 1998, I *asked*
where xtrs should go.
The consensus back then was contrib.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go
ten to be
far more independent of the BASIC ROM. In the case of the 4P, the
BASIC ROM was not even loaded into RAM.
--
G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux |thinking, they'll love you; but if
[EMAIL P
ware in our archive, let
alone in main.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like he
,
> Debian.
If you wouldn't put words in Debian's mouth, maybe you wouldn't have to
feel that way.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Why should I allow that same God
Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. killing someone by thrusting the
> screwdriver in his/her throat).
Funny how that should spring to mind in reply to a paragraph about
Nintendo's lawyers.
Can't imagine why. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're
Debian
al repudiation message" that we
can use to disclaim the words of...overzealous...users, if necessary.
If a Debian Developer gets too rude with an outside party, we have other
methods at our disposal.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If atheism is a reli
moderate his thinking a bit[3].
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00459.html
[2] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00614.html
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PL to the icon, then the GNU GPL
does not and will not apply to it.
It *is* possible that the icon can be licensed such that someone *else* can
modify it and *then* apply the GNU GPL to the modified version.
[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
--
G. Branden Robinson
Has there been any progress on this?
--
G. Branden Robinson| "There is no gravity in space."
Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon?"
http://people.debian.org
reach with their licenses
and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for prohibition in
copyright law.
We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Notions like Marxism and
Debian GNU/Linux | Freud
islators won't take kindly to being told
that their laws which apply to contracts don't apply to Apple's contracts.
Those whom haven't already been bought by Apple, anyway.
(Assuming this is a contract, which isn't apropos for a copyright license
anyway.)
--
G. Branden
t that this exception is moronic.
It makes a mockery of our defense of software freedom.
I have not yet heard of an application of this loophole that wasn't
motivated my malevolent intent ("We want to fuck over competitor Q who
otherwise would be able to easily distribute our sof
ely an anthology of C source files, then this sort of
cravenness is something for which they need to be held to account.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | innocentis.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:26:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications
> > > have value".
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't thin
more than it
reasonably *can* do under the law, quite apart from whether its intentions
are DFSG-free or not.
--
G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn.
Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
mmercial purposes -- I'm not aware of any that prohibit modification
altogether. The latter would make it challenging to fix bugs.)
--
G. Branden Robinson|Religion consists in a set of
Debian GNU/Linux |things which the average man thinks
[EMAIL PROTEC
d if so, how it
might make sense to apply it differently.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe
http://
human-interpreted-only version
numbers, so I guess not.
> Would this license get in the way if I wanted to take parts of xinetd and
> use them in other projects?
It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit
code reuse in other projects?
[1] http://peo
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >>I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
> >>that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
> >>software to r
plays if a cartridge isn't inserted. The second is the same as
> >>requiring a non-free library for which there is no free replacement.
> >>(I'm not aware of any free replacement PSX BIOSes.)
> >
> >Agreed, fully.
> >
> I'd agree with that,
I guess I see
bare-knuckled argumentation even in the rare cases where it's not present.
:)
My apologies.
--
G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a
are truly independent,
this should be very easy. There is no "lingering taint" of the GNU GPL.
The only license that is on the independent work is that which was placed
on it originally.
If it's any consolation, this is a very common misconception, and one that
has been rampant on,
arge prime numbers discovered by
computers? How about long checksums, laboriously calculated?
/me cannot wait for the first copyright infringment via hash collision
court case
--
G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:25:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-07 11:04:33 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >The Dictator Test: [...]
> >If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP.
>
> Please connect this to specific DFS
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical examples
> of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well.
I'll try and think of some.
--
G. Branden Robinson|L
w.latex-project.org/ltnews/ltnews15.pdf
[2] "Thank you for your help, Remco."
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00040.html
[3] http://blog.bofh.it/id_42
http://blog.bofh.it/id_40
http://blog.bofh.it/id_38
http://blog.bofh.it/id
Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
- Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Date:
g anything under the new
> > license yet.
> >
> No, we're releasing with 1.2.
Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we could ask
upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase?
This doesn't require anything more than an email on
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations?
--
G. Branden Robinson
[I am not subscribed to debian-tetex-maint.]
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we
> > could ask upstream to apply the
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
> > > on that,
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why shouldn't we present license
y.
I don't see why that should stop us from exploring the ramfications of
clauses like the one in question, what we think of them, and where we
(Debian developers) disagree with each other as to what is and is not
DFSG-free.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any man who do
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:12:25PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:59:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit
> > code reuse in other projects?
[...]
> Patch clauses are at
useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a
package. Maybe that *was* your point.
> That would be a waste of archive resources.
Er, before heading down this road, I think you should attempt an objective
demonstration that we seem to give a damn about wasting arc
if only to get these out of contrib.
>
> There is a free[1] doom WAD, see bug #206139. Why noone has packaged it,
> I don't know.
According to the bug logs, as of about a month ago Moritz Muehlenhoff
announced his intent to package it.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:22:36AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Do we expect the typical user of the emulator to already have game
> >ROMs on hand? If so, by what means?
>
> Do you really want to know and control the mea
e[1])?
> > This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if
> > the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free,
> Which it isn't.
>
> > then so should this clause of the APSL.
I concur with this analysis.
[1] ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley
se now?
Why, particularly, should he deviate from the fine example set by Craig
Sanders and other supporters of Proposal D?
--
G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "
ersonal" in Debian, and used the blue ant graphics rather than
> the official graphics. However, checking again, I see that this is not
> the case in either the stable or unstable versions. This is definitely
> a violation of the Abiword license, and should be submitted as a serious
the abuser
> losing his copyright, his trademark, or both.
This is interesting. Do you have any references where I read more about
it?
--
G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you
[EMAIL
r people like Matthew Garrett, who actually help, even
> though I don't completely agree with him.
Agreed.
Also, Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my
liver is sure to say about him in another 40 years.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Life is
delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
Permit me to sprinkle some Google juice.
Want to know more about debian-legal and what it does?
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
[1] GNU Emacs and GCC
--
G. Branden R
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:07:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> > everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I'd li
CTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If the jury can count higher than
Debian GNU/Linux | two, the case will fail.
[EMAIL PROT
o their licenses.
It's a comfortable for of self-delusion.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked
Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
sign
rther restrictions
^^^
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
^
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
--
G. Branden Robinson| "
[self-followup]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:10:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >]
[...]
> Under the Free Software Foundation's interpretation of the GNU GPL, this is
> also true if Hydra links against GNU GPL-licen
; Packages;
Does this really surprise you? :)
/me dreads what is sure to befall him now that he has indulged in this
hubris
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
y they
could be left out, and kept handy for people who wonder exactly what it
means to release people from certain clauses of the GNU GPL.
Copyright and License
Copyright © 1998–2004 Branden Robinson.
This is free documentation; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of th
to a lower standard of having to do his
homework than the people who reply to him? He's been a Debian Developer
for longer than most of the regulars on this list, and is a member of the
Technical Committee.
One would reasonably expect him to have a formidable command of the issues.
--
G. B
pany/model.html). If Trolltech felt that the
QPL alone were friendly enough to open-source, why do they have a
dual-licensing policy?
Copyright holders in QPL-licensed works should be encouraged to follow
Trolltech's example, and dual-license their work under the GNU GPL or
ons in the next 2-3 days from the debian-legal
people (in case another problem arose while I was away...).
bye,
-christian-
----- End forwarded message -
--
G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:01:02PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better
> > move quickly to evaluate what's going on here.
>
> Sorry, I mixed up -policy with -
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> >
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:56:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose
> >that
> >GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criter
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
>
> Minor is relative, and depends on context.
>
> In the context of G
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:17:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction
> > between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of
> > such projects (which al
1 - 100 of 1567 matches
Mail list logo
