On 2004-07-07 02:41:27 +0100 Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I do have a question on an individual package-by-package basis,
who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG?
I believe that, ultimately, ftpmaster are responsible for the archive.
They listen to oth
Hi,
Today is a new day for your residence. With levels
at their headline-making historic lows, our programs
are better now than ever before. Even if you've recently
closed on a property, now is the time to check your
numbers.
Our advisors are here to help you decide your options.
In fact, did you
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> > > Some companies feel that various licenses were
> > > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ...
> >
> > Maybe some companies should genuinely stop
> > tryi
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> > Some companies feel that various licenses were
> > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ...
>
> Maybe some companies should genuinely stop
> trying to invent new free licenses. Still, if
>
> (a) they feel that they absolutely mu
Matthew wrote:
> 2) The possibility that GNOME's adoptation of Java as an application
> development language would result in software depending on a closed
> JDK.The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that
> can't be run with free Java implementations
java-gnome has worked off
Matthew's report is interesting and appreciated.
Some companies cannot seem to restrain
themselves from stirring the mud in the license
swamp, can they? Like three-year-old boys, they
just love to stir that mud.
> Some companies feel that various licenses were
> genuine efforts to be DFSG free .
MJ Ray writes:
> As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is
> forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
> other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
> the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on t
I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been
pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only
cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone,
asking for cc if you need it.
On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not
> obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be
> excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were
> genuine efforts to be D
I was present at the 2004 GUADEC (GNOME Users and Developers Europen
Conference) in order to represent Debian on the GNOME advisory board (at
the request of the DPL) and to talk to companies active in the Linux
desktop community. Several things were brought up several times by
different people:
1)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:51:48PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > Jak rozwiązać problem?
>
> Skonfigurować X'y i nie słać tu tak wielkich załączników.
Doh, I didn't notice that it's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general he asked how to fix his problem with X server.
Darek - ta lista nie służy
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:19:47AM +0200, Dariusz Mierzwa wrote:
> Jak rozwiązać problem?
Skonfigurować X'y i nie słać tu tak wielkich załączników.
pozdr,
fEnIo
--
_ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 |
IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/
12 matches
Mail list logo
