On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
> > I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
>
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
> I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
> (please CC me).
Actually, I'm thinking it's probably more on-topic on -le
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please CC me).
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modif
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> > > Doing a simple modifica
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> > Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require
> > you to
> > write
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff
> wrote:
>> Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not
>> a webapp, what then?
>
> please see this:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq
Hi,
On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not
> a webapp, what then?
please see this:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely
It could eg. also be network file sys
Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
> Russell Coker wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
>>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
>>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, S
Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.
>
> If you co
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.
If you connect to my SMTP server you w
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network protocol
>> that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
>
> This is actually your best argument so far, but I don't think it's
> completely true either.
Yes
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
> (this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in
> <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>)
>
> Asking for seconds,
> (please CC me)
> Bil
Bill Allombert wrote:
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
>
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
> with it remotely through a computer
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
(this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>)
Asking for seconds,
(please CC me)
Bill.
This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5,
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:06AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:02:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >>> RATIONALE (to b
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:49:57AM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Bill Allombert :
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your
> > consideration.
> >
> > Asking for seconds.
> >
> > - - - - - - -
> > General Resolution made in accordance w
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:02:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):
>>> 2. This clause is incompatible with section 3. o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
2009/3/19 Bill Allombert :
> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
>
> Asking for seconds.
>
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The De
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):
First of all, thanks a lot for your helpful contribution to this discussion.
> > 2. This clause is incompatible with
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):
> 2. This clause is incompatible with section 3. of the Debian Free Software
> Guideline:
> 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> Doing a simple modification to a
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
>
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> e
On Mon Mar 23 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
> > modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
> > requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds.
>
> I don't think the secretary currently
MJ Ray writes:
> Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721
> merely a summary of current practice? The statement there seemed
> incomplete in significant ways.
The ftpmaster statement about the AGPL was remarkably explicit.
recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmast
MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> MJ Ray writes:
>>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>> effects. I encourage all DD
Russ Allbery wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> effects. I encourage all DDs to not second it
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>MJ Ray writes:
>
>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
>I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>effects.
MJ Ray writes:
> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
effects. I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
if
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > - - - - - - -
> > General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
> >
> > The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert wrote:
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Softw
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Please make clear what is part of the proposal and what is not.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debi
> Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the
> archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this
> GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are
> not the target, the AGPL is.
It is not seperate. You do want to override
Bill Allombert writes:
> I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The
> purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL
> meet DFSG.
>
> I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome
> of such determination, and I think it w
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
> overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
> motivation?
I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.
The purpose o
"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" writes:
> On 18-03-2009 20:55, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Bill Allombert writes:
>>> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>>> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU
>>> Affero Public License are not free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-03-2009 20:55, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
>> - - - - - - -
>> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>>
>> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
>> Public Lic
Bill Allombert writes:
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
> - - - - - - -
What is the c
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Asking for seconds.
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
Public License are not
37 matches
Mail list logo
