On 14 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I agree. I also say it applies to licenses as well. If not,
> >> please provide reasons (which I shall turn around and use for
> >> standards, then).
>
>
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I agree. I also say it applies to licenses as well. If not,
>> please provide reasons (which I shall turn around and use for
>> standards, then).
Joey> In an ideal world it'd apply to licenses. We don't li
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Actually, I am going to make a stand about our Hypocrisy;
>> anything that you have said also applies to Licenses. You want to
>> throw things like the FHS and others out of main, you have to throw
>> out the DFSG, the social cont
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Something to consider: you have gone a ong way towards convincing me
>> that the rename-and-distinguish-if-modified clause is a good thing if
>> one is creating a standard; but what if
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I agree. I also say it applies to licenses as well. If not,
> please provide reasons (which I shall turn around and use for
> standards, then).
In an ideal world it'd apply to licenses. We don't live in that world
and if we insited on requiring this anyway, debian
Hi,
>>"Charles" == Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Charles> "Non-software"? Data is software, isn't it?
Not as the term is commonly used.
>From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (15Feb98) (foldoc)
software
Computer {programs}, as opposed to the computers
On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:26:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Something to consider: you have gone a ong way towards
> convincing me that the rename-and-distinguish-if-modified clause is a
> good thing if one is creating a standard; but what if the author has
> gone the route of no m
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something to consider: you have gone a ong way towards convincing me
> that the rename-and-distinguish-if-modified clause is a good thing if
> one is creating a standard; but what if the author has gone the route
> of no modifications at all? Is thi
(I'm afraid the discussion will have moved on since I wrote this; I am
subject to a lag of about a day. If the discussion has progressed to
the point that this is irrelevant, feel free to ignore it.)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Licenses for non-software entities
>
I sent this to wmpeople and [EMAIL PROTECTED] yesterday.
Shaleh wrote:
>
> Currently Debian supports /etc/X11/window-managers as a place to
> register window managers w/ X. The first window manager in the list is
> run as default unless the user specifies on when X starts (in .xinitrc
> or what
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Hello,
Marcus> this is was RMS told me about this topic. I think it is
Marcus> relevant for the discussion. It contains an example where a
Marcus> free standard would have been useful and provides yet another
Marcus> solu
Hi,
All Right!. This is a good message; something I can sink my
teeth into.
Something to consider: you have gone a ong way towards
convincing me that the rename-and-distinguish-if-modified clause is a
good thing if one is creating a standard; but what if the author has
gone th
Hello,
this is was RMS told me about this topic. I think it is relevant for the
discussion. It contains an example where a free standard would have been
useful and provides yet another solution for standard authors to protect
the integrity of their standard.
There are now many ways for authors t
On Thu, Aug 13, 1998 at 11:53:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> Great option. Imagine the free software would follow the same
> Marcus> criterion. "If you want to publish a variant C compiler, you
> Marcus> can alw
I believe this is the last mail that wasn't delivered due to failure.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Great option. Imagine the free software would follow the s
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Great option. Imagine the free software would follow the same
Marcus> criterion. "If you want to publish a variant C compiler, you
Marcus> can always rewrite gcc".
*Sigh*. Again you harp on software, and ins
> > starters. What about the GPL etc? By all rights the GPL itself should
> > be in the verbatim section.
>
> The GPL has a built-in copying clause:
>
> Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
>
> Ev
There was a recent discussion on standards licenses, and whether or not
they should be under the GPL, or under the standard they describe. In my
opinion, this should almost never be the case. A standard needs to be
under a very flexible license, if a standard does not adapt, it will die.
A standard
18 matches
Mail list logo
