On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear Debian voters,
> >
> > I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
> > to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther.
> >
> > ==
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> >
> > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to menti
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Dear Debian voters,
> > >
> > > I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
> >
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:06:19 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
[...]
> > baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing
> > sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
> > otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operat
Francesco Poli writes:
> What makes you think that every and each copyright holder acted in good
> faith when started to distribute firmware under the terms of the GNU GPL
> v2, while keeping the source code secret?
> Some copyright holder could be deliberately preparing a trap, in order
> to be a
5 matches
Mail list logo
