Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
-Roberto
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Arlitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Martin Arlitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: forwarded message from Robert
[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
>
> Assuming that
>
> * httperf is currently released un
ian distribution, so there is no need to
rush.
-Roberto
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > [Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> (
> Please mail followups to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> )
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
&g
le-kjv-text is not SWORD-compatible. I looked :)
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
pgpdkGKrMLokV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nts are ignored (for a
completely different reason).
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
same thing. One is a product (the code), the other is a
service (the access to it). This is supposed to be specifically
addressed by GPL 3.
> Thank you for your answers.
>
> PS:I know it is not polite, but can you please CC: me? I did not
> subscribe the list.
>
Regards,
f any dispute. I now cut the ribbon
> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
>
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
anglais.
>
I'm no legal expert, but I seem to recall that these type of venue
selection clauses make the licenses non-free.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
bian Policy was
> that source packages must be DFSG-free too, but I can't find a precise
> quotation in the Debian Policy Manual and point to it.
>
IIRC, the rule is that sources and binaries must be DFSG free.
Otherwise, source CDs would fall under different rules than binary CDs.
Rega
istributing
> sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
> otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in peril.
>
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://p
. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> > you're not a lawyer.
>
> So, do you have anything to say about what Nathanael said? How does
> his not being a lawyer make his statement false?
>
I don't think the point was that the statement is false, rather that it
i
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
> > legal liability.
>
> Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not
ct.
> [And if for some reason it was readable into my initial response, that
> was definetly not the intention.]
>
OK. I'll drop it then.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
es/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense)
which would make it non-free. Is this correct? Should a bug be filed
against the gnuplot* packages?
-Roberto
P.S. please CC me as I am not subscribed to -legal
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenP
. Correct? I am just trying to make sure that I understand
this, for my own edification.
-Roberto
P.S. Please CC me, as I am not subscribed to -legal.
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
veloper of the software has the
power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause,
the software is not free."
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>>Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
>>>the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
>>>unsuitable for any serious deployment.
>
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
>
>
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
tml?rev=1.1.1.1
[4]
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0.1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez:
>
>
>>I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
>>already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
>>Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
>>licenses (as I u
Quoting "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
"You must ensure that
4j/LICENSE.TXT?rev=1.2&view=markup
It is compatible.
--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
?rev=1.2&view=markup
>
> ddd>
>
> This is not a 3-clause BSD license, but rather an MIT/X11-like one,
> which is indeed compatible with the GPL
>
Thanks for the clarification.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
.
-Roberto
[0] http://felix.sourceforge.net/current/www/licence.html
[1] http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
pgpD0lXn55SIk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
http://www.urbancode.com/projects/anthill/License_UPL.txt
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
pgpZ41N37kH1L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
lication,
> but QuickForm is released under the PHP license, which is incompatible
> :/
>
If you are the author of said application, you could release under the
MIT or BSD-type license.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
hich is GPL but also links to OpenSSL.
It has an exception. IIRC, the same sort of situation applies to
Python.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
packaged officially for Debian.
>
Some reason why you think it is illegal and *where* you think it is
illegal would be important and probably also generate a more fruitful
discussion than a simple claim of it's illegal with nothing else.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://pe
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:08:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/08/07 18:43, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:02:02PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> >> That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
> >> It seems
of our
choosing about which we are passionate solely for the purpose of self
actualization. All knowledge is shared and there is no impediment to
its exchange. Of course, as we live in the real world and are
predominantly driven by money as a society, we really can't do as they
do in ST:TNG.
Regards
o often read emails using a web
> interface.
> Thank you for reading, and forgive me for the OT.
>
Because it waste's space? That's what server-side filtering is for. If
you read mail in an 80 character wide terminal, then you will know that
many subject lines already get
e 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
>
> On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU General Public License
> may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.
>
That won't work as there is no SSL excpetion for the GPL. You can check
the copyright file for the httperf to see how I h
the right word?) by the client. The attorney can only invoke it if the
information he is being asked to reveal somehow reveals some protected
information of the client. I would think that since SPI is the client,
they can unilaterally decide to make the information public.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
warred off long-shot litigation.
>
OK. Makes perfect sense to me.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
35 matches
Mail list logo
