Re: GPL v3 process

2005-11-01 Thread Florian Weimer
* Nathanael Nerode: > Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? >> >> I think Debian should, to make sure that license compatibility does >> not decrease substantially, and that things like the purported >> anti-DRM clause

Re: GPL v3 process

2005-11-01 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Florian Weimer wrote: > Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? > > I think Debian should, to make sure that license compatibility does > not decrease substantially, and that things like the purported > anti-DRM clauses remain practical. We'd love to, but it

Re: GPL v3 process

2005-11-01 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:41PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Florian Weimer] > > Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? > That's a question for debian-legal. Well, really it's a question for > the FSF. My impression is that there is no "GPL v3

Re: GPL v3 process

2005-11-01 Thread MJ Ray
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [Florian Weimer] > > Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? > > That's a question for debian-legal. Well, really it's a question for > the FSF. My impression is that there is no "GPL v3 process" exce

Re: GPL v3 process

2005-10-31 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Florian Weimer] > Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? That's a question for debian-legal. Well, really it's a question for the FSF. My impression is that there is no "GPL v3 process" except whatever is done behind closed doors at the FSF. *After* th

GPL v3 process

2005-10-31 Thread Florian Weimer
Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process? I think Debian should, to make sure that license compatibility does not decrease substantially, and that things like the purported anti-DRM clauses remain practical. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubs