Branden Robinson wrote:
> A) Can folks in other countries help us find out if publicity rights
>are recognized there?
IANAL, and the few areas about the law that I do have a more than
average knowledge about do not include this part; however, ISTR having
heard something about it not being lega
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:38:17AM -0400, Dan Weber wrote:
> > The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is
> > because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for
> > this, and ot
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:41:09AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:20:47AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is
> > > forbidden?
> > >
> > > I'm
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and
> cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1].
Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they
certainly are not delegates in their
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:15:58PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
> > [MFT to d-legal, don't know what d-devel has to do with this]
>
> Keeping track of licences for prospective new packages is of interest to all
> developers.
Correct. So is keeping track of how close we are to finishing
debian-inst
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- wi
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 04:34:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
> instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing so, is enough for
> me to agree with Joey's decision.
That doesn't actually seem to me to be what he's doin
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:15:36PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> Ok, change committed. You are now attributed in the administrivia section.
> Thanks for the great doc.
You suck. You know you just ended a potentially great and entertaining
flamewar by leaving one side without arguments? ;-)
(jk, o
opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>
> === CUT HERE ===
--
Wouter
o find the text of the european directive), so there could
be a difference here.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"
good definition for documentation, but it
is a good lead)
> > But anyway, documentation is not source code. That is my main quibble.
>
> It looks like source code, smells like source code, and behaves like
> source code.
Yeah, but its purpose isn't the same as source code.
[...
is, say its license is the GPL,
and redistribute it as such", which obviously is correct. What aj said
is "We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as
such". Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute
it, we can do that, as long as we d
nual.
> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
Is a manual the right place for advocacy? Isn't the purpose of a manual
to document a piece of software?
--
Wouter Verhelst
program or an essay, and that this deserves protection
equally well. The difference, however, is that the protection for
databases hasn't gone mad the way copyright law has (i.e., it's still 15
years, no more).
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Li
med Nobody. I can believe that
> personally _you_ will never remove sections from documentation you
> distribute just because you disagree with author. Even the majority
> of debian developers will not do that.
>
> But Wouter Verhelst, to whom letter I reply, clearly stated
&g
nd the serial number
> Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD
> User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the
> programm
>
> Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depe
ke during the last
year I went to school. It's pretty accurate, but what's in this mail is
an interpretation of an interpretation (I haven't seen the actual
lawtexts, only my teacher's interpretation of them). I could've made
some mistakes.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux --
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * If you create a database, you have the right to
> > - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database.
> > Obviously, som
Op di 26-08-2003, om 22:09 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original".
>
> I think that principle is unique to the U.S.;
I wrote that sentence only after
"unaltered in their text and in their titles". It says nothing
> about preserving formatting or markup.
Interesting. We should enscorypt it, then (use a greek font), or make
sure the font is so small that nobody can read it without a microscope.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian G
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
> Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-do
f whom Richard is
known to be one):
``[...] For GPL version 3 we are
considering requirements for preserving certain limited author
information in the source code, and making explicit that other
GPL-compatible licenses that are present on parts of the code cannot
be removed from the source, but noth
about the hypothetical scenario that someone _could_ put
such a statement in ls, thereby misrepresenting the original author's
opinion.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck."
out the right to do so; it would be the Free
Software-equivalent of software piracy.
If you want to be 100% sure, I suggest you go to a solicitor with a copy
of the GPL; but I don't think a click-through license is necessary.
[...]
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.or
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 20:39]:
> > So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
> > and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the L
tions, copyright-like protections to extend to
> > databases of facts.
>
> I don't believe that database law applies here, due to the small size
> of the data set.
It is not really the size of the data set that matters; the amount of
work required to create the dataset is.
--
Wou
t
may be discussing licenses on a daily basis, that doesn't give you any
authority either.
Thanks.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing i
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun
> > RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn&
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:49:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc
>
> Equally, we s
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should rea
; > versions) as long as you also provide access to the source.
>
> Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer
> (good for three years) to provide it at cost.
ITYM 'at a reasonable price for distributing the media' :-)
--
Wouter Verh
nd we can't possibly
> >> let scruples stand in the way of market share, can we?
>
> > I couldn't care less about market share. I do care about the social
> > contract, though, which says 'Our priorities are our users and free
> > software'.
>
&
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 22:39 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer
> >> (good for three years) to provide it at cost.
> &
can import
some (not too exotic) LaTeX-files into LyX. That is not the recommended
way to do it, however, and the LyX file format is completely different.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing d
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> >> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
es.
Attached, the text of the WDL, as an ASCII text file, and another ASCII
text file enumerating the differences between the FDL and the WDL, with
a bit of explanation.
Respectfully,
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http:/
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:36:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Is Not an Emulator".) It may be worth asking the FSF. They have an
> email address for license questions, but I have forgotten what it is.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's something along those lines, for sure.
--
s "Transparent" formats in that way
:-)
Rg,
Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> > unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
>
> I just thought it
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
> >prepare. That's quite discouraging.
>
> It was MIME&#
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
> > sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
ors a spellcheck should correct for you.
Right. I *knew* I was forgetting something when I mailed it.
I'll do that tomorrow, though. Way too tired to concentrate on that
right now :)
> What copyright is the FDL under and is the WDL allowed to contain so
> much of it?
Branden brought t
r human modification', as
well? Also, as I said before, I don't think that the unavailability of
free software to modify a document format makes the format non-free.
Next, I'm not aware of any patents on the PDF format. Do you have more
information on that one?
--
Wouter Verhelst
D
Op za 13-09-2003, om 18:40 schreef MJ Ray:
> On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a
> > strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinion
Op zo 14-09-2003, om 16:07 schreef MJ Ray:
> On 2003-09-14 12:08:02 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small
> > print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original
> &g
a certain license. Agreed, I
wouldn't do that for each and every license out there, but I'd say the
FSF is different in that they do, honestly, want to have free
documentation.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://
d.)
The GFDL does not even allow patch files. This requirement is too
prohibitive by Debian's standards. Simple.
Your above statement falls in the FUD class.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breath
Op wo 17-09-2003, om 01:06 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >
> > A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
> > the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of th
panying
> notice indicating the source.
> ***
>
> We can make copies _in any form_ _whether for profit or not_. Where's the
> problem?
No grant to modification, perhaps? (although that probably wouldn't be
extremely helpful, but anyway)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Deb
people before. Are you sure that is what you want?
[1] not that I believe in 'good' and 'bad' organizations, but you know
what I mean.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop
e goals could be
> acceptable under the DFSG.
That's a possible approach too, of course, but I think it's easier to
debate over an actual text than over a hypothetical one. YMMV.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want.
Uh. Obviously I meant "there's nothing in the GPL that I would want"
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederla
od; if you haven't, please do.
I for one will know what the FSF stands for, and will not easily be
pursuaded to think of the FSF as an '3v1l' organization, but I'm not
sure everyone thinks that way.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Li
ted on it.
With the GFDL, this requirement is there.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!&
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a
> > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess
at any document should follow the
> Free Software rules, software or not, nobody against the GFDLed text
> inclusion clearly stated his point of view.
Please. Read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01031.html
and the thread that follows it. Or, if you don't
ch is required to be part of the work by the GFDL)
are not a problem.
> Whether the manual's text could be used in a free software package
> with a license that qualifies as free software, but is not one I'd
> want to use, is just academic.
In your opinion, perhaps. Al
different kind,
> such as an essay about the funding of free software, is something above
> and beyond the call of duty for a license.
This is our main point of disagreement, I think.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.
don't just lose comments and markup constructs, but
also content.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my ne
installation, hardcoded into embedded system software
> or hardware?
The chips containing the Debian installation are hardware; however, the
installation itself is still software.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux
r. I mean,
> really, the only way you could of done worse would be to sign the damn
> thing.
>
> PS: Was that dadadodo?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=65.26.182.85+site%3Alists.debian.org
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or
> >> hardware?
>
> >No. Is it in Debian?
>
> So, your definition of &qu
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>
> >
> >You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
> >
> >Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That could of been forged.
Received: headers can be forged, too...
u're a liar.
(in case my English is worse than I thought: no, the fact that 'evil'
and 'manojish' appear in the same... uh... tag doesn't mean I consider
Manoj evil :-)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie --
Op vr 03-10-2003, om 03:31 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:54:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > (in case my English is worse than I thought: no, the fact that
> > 'evil' and 'manojish' appear in the same... uh... t
hing computer-related is patented, there's no other way.
> If you've found a violation of the DFSG in xine, please file a serious
> bug against xine-ui or libxine1, as appropriate.
The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything
about patents, only about
his is enforceable at all, it can be
> interpreted literally enough to allow the upstream author to be
> identified in the debian/copyright file, as required by policy.
Is that an issue? The license text needs to be part of the
debian/copyright file.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- htt
ur
intention and at the same time has no unclear points, you are welcome to
provide suggestions."
Not that I think I'm experienced enough to provide suggestions, but
can't we at least try?
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-document
as defined in the GPL. I don't think that is the case;
AFAICS, the only GPL-incompatibility in this entire license is paragraph
3c.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft W
We still distribute
> those).
However, that does not mean the same is true for the upstream author;
and if he requests that you wait until he's checked with a lawyer, I
don't think it's unreasonable to do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandst
raph to your copyright
notice that says something like
"As a special exception, the author grants you the right to link the
Program with any software licensed under "
Obviously, you can only do this legally if you are, in fact, the author
of that license.
--
Wouter Verhelst
De
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:00:17PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Obviously, you can only do this legally if you are, in fact, the author
> of that license.
Uh. the author of the Program, not the license :)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
> > So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
> > myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
> > compiler)
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Main must be built with only packages from main.
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > No, that&#
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
> upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
> you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
> sources with a free
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
> > Software.
>
> That is the title of that section.
>
> If you bother
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
> > Wesley's software can be built using software in main. It will not be as
> > fast, but it will still do its job, flawlessly, without loss of
> > fea
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:47:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
>
> If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
[...]
> This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
> law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
> cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
> have no
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
> experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
> Mac68K hackers.
Well, actually, they have been. It is true that Apple has long refused
to giv
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:20:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
>
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:14:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, the US are mostly the most restrictive (unreasonable) juridiction
> > on this kind of issues, so ...
>
> That's not my experience. The U.S. is very aggressive
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
> It's a simple, generic stroke of "rough charcoal", a standard brush
> shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
> five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
> new document
>
> I don't see any
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > It saves *so* much trouble.
>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >
> > > The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
> > > cases and certainly not in the case with the ma
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you*
> > say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do
> > in
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing
> > java!
>
> Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on
>
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not
> allowed to offer it. Then yo
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I
> > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even
> > if I ask, but i
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
> >> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
> >
> > Non
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> > They do not need to.
>
> No, there's no absolute *need* to do that,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
> > > the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
> > > for the effects of everything in our operating system?
> >
> > If y
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> > suggested by the Developer's Reference.
>
> Please don't confuse things by introducing
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
> > only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > What I can
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > seen repeated claims t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that
> > there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which
> > is used b
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
