executed satire --
something which was also claimed to be discriminatory.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ompetitor 0.0 and
another 10.0 in one event? The "How range voting works" section makes
no mention of it, either.
I really should know better by now, but I am still surprised when
Range Voting advocates throw out such bogus claims.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ample above, if the most preferred
candidate is given 99 points and the least preferred three candidates
all get 0, the outcome is still quite susceptible to strategic scoring
of the second place candidate.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ces were known in advance, no experiment would be
necessary or appropriate. However, no one has shown or plausibly can
show a provably ideal way to expend these resources.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uditing a source code package is reasonably well-understood. For
binary packages, it is not, but it is clear that it is much more
labor-intensive.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about
requiring a 3:1 supermajority.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ish that they
would stop -- and given the context ("more than what anyone could
reasonably expect you to"), I find it hard to read the "normal people"
line above as an insult.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OIS, and related messages provide adequate presence notification.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;GNU/Solaris" CDDL-licensed standard library case? Has it
simply gone unnoticed by those who campaign so hard to kill
competition?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anibal Monsalve Salazar writes:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>Andrew Suffield writes:
>>>On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>>>My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody
om
the start. The real reason I gave up is that it is clear that neither
of us is convincing the other.
Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric, it is also telling that
nobody else has stepped up to argue that your posts were acceptable.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
will be less hassle to killfile you rather
than try to reform you to minimal sociability.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> How else should I consider a mail that simply declares "Troll."? Do
>> you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
>> besides saving yourself the effort of justifying
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
>> explanation at length.
>
> When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
> with ex
Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>> > My response is simply this: it's li
time. Even though I personally tend to ignore
Andrew Suffield, I think an organized effort to killfile _anyone_ is a
misguided application of social pressure. If the alleged misbehavior
is not so systematic that everyone can see it, it is not bad enough to
warrant ostracism.
Michael Poole
--
To
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never
>> publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright
>> law, also protects the authors'
Marty writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Marty writes:
>>
>>> Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
>>> the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
>>> user, but does so in a way that promote
be limited in how
they can use or distribute the work, simply because the author
injected a diatribe that does not pertain to the main body of the
work[1].
It is rather short-sighted to encourage a significant limitation in
freedom because no author has yet abused that limitation.
Michael
ria above others
in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less
discriminatory way would be to flag (internally or on a central web
site somewhere) each package in non-free according to which parts of
DFSG it fails.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
data (or does anything useful with it)
is a question for the hardware designer, not for the OS.
Michael Poole
n be.
An invariant section is an integral part of the documentation; by the
GFDL's definition, it is otherwise irrelevant content. The license is
legally required metadata: The copyright owner provides a particular
license to users, and those users must know exactly what that license
is. No redistributor may alter that license's text and pass it off as
applying to the original software.
Michael Poole
e to the device; some argue that the
drivers must go into contrib on the basis that the device is not
functional without the firmware, and the driver is not functional
without the device.
Michael Poole
se. I disagree with that because that
interpretation opens a significant loophole in the GPL's protection
and because getting a new license would not remedy previous instances
of copyright infringement.
Michael Poole
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-24 15:49:12 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] patents covering programs is not a problem
> > specific to the USA. [...]
>
> Indeed, but that's neither global nor natural. The post I first
> replied to see
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-24 14:23:34 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Your (claimed) law is not everyone's law. It's silly to ignore the
> > case of the US [...]
>
> Similarly, it's silly to assert that US law is everyone
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-24 13:37:42 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Computer programs, by their nature, combine both copyrightable and
> > patentable elements.
>
> Mathematical relationships are discoveries, not inventions. Similarly
>
> > while at the same time alleging that it violates your patents
>
> You can't combine things of different type like that.
Computer programs, by their nature, combine both copyrightable and
patentable elements. Neither Glenn nor patent lawsuit termination
clauses were the first to combine them.
Michael Poole
from gun abuse and nuclear technology abuse?
No one has tried. We have so far considered terms of software that
people want to include in Debian (including how to fix non-free
licenses), so I do not see good reason to debate what would make such
clauses free.
Michael Poole
ave done had she not received
> the program. We have to keep this distinction in mind, I think.
None of the patent clauses prevent people from doing things they could
have done had they not received the program, since none of them try to
enforce a waiver on the licensee.
Michael Poole
John Hasler writes:
> Michael Poole writes:
> > Company B's "defensive" claims also affect all other users of the
> > original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent
> > rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe.
>
> Why
restrictions are non-free. You will always be able to find ways to
> abuse them to gain arbitrary degrees of control over the software.
One could claim that allowing others to access a program over the
network includes sufficient transfer of copyrighted material to
trigger section 3 of the GPL. Debian has rejected explicit "external
deployment" clauses in the past, but accepts the GPL despite this
possibility.
I just pulled that one out of the air. There are countless more like
it. Making up corner cases is not particularly useful.
Michael Poole
incompatible with the GPL.
And on Apache Software License 2.0:
We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad
idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Michael Poole
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> On 2004-05-07 14:20:37 +0100 Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian
>>> at
>>> all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement
>>> from
>>> Debian.
>>
>
doubt it -- selling shirts would be a commercial purpose outside
"identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a
licensee."
I do not think it would even be safe to sell shirts that say "Buy your
Coke at Joe's Convenience Mart." Since you see income from selling the
shirts, it could be argued as using the mark in commerce.
Michael Poole
-productive ways, could
they please do it off-list? When "bullying" (to borrow the term used
earlier in a related thread) moves from technical issues to personal
attacks, it merely escalates problems. It only resolves the issues by
driving people away, and that does not generally help the long term.
Michael Poole
36 matches
Mail list logo
