Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > In any event, to resolve this issue completely
>
> While we're at it. Since we obviously have time-related issues with the
> complete solution :) can someone suggest an alternate phrasing for
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070531 12:40]:
> > - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that
> > contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feel
On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:40 -0300
"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About "Who's using Debian" and CD Vendors
> =
>
> It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take
> care of those submissions, I think it wou
Hi!
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070531 12:40]:
> - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that
> contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feels he
> should be contacted and isn't
d-a? d-a as in debian-announce?
Yo
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:12:22 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now
> >> nor in the future.
>
> > We'd have to revi
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:12:22 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now
>> nor in the future.
> We'd have to revisit it in cases where works in the website which we
> would
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either
> now nor in the future.
We'd have to revisit it in cases where works in the website which we
would like to combine are under different, conflicting free licenses.
> Indeed, if the i
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:31:41 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it
>> > would enable us to us
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:23:26AM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> >> This means that we have to copy & paste the entries into the
> >> webwml/english/CD/vendors.CD file in CVS, *manually* sort the list,
> >
> > This manual sorting bugs me. We should definitely be able to throw
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 08:19:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Huh?
> I don't see anything missing in the thread.
> Do you mean http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2007/05/msg00235.html
Oops - yes, I meant that one! :-o I did check my own spam folder before
posting... somehow I missed my own mail or
On Saturday 02 June 2007 20:10, Richard Atterer wrote:
> FWIW, I'm unable to send my comments (quoted in part by Josip above, as
> I mailed him directly) to this mailing list. Apparently they are always
> deleted by the list's spam filter. :-(
Huh?
I don't see anything missing in the thread.
Do yo
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:03:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big
> > improvement over the previous state:
>
> ...the previous state being that a vendor mails assor
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it
> > would enable us to use the work in combination with any other
> > license, so would be ok.
>
> And kinda
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> While my preference is the GPL V2; I would be willing to accept any
>> DFSG free license, if asked. But signing away my rights mean that, in
>> theory, Debian can decide to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> While my preference is the GPL V2; I would be willing to accept any
> DFSG free license, if asked. But signing away my rights mean that,
> in theory, Debian can decide to change the license to something
> unacceptable (look at documentation the FSF cha
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> In any event, to resolve this issue completely
While we're at it. Since we obviously have time-related issues with the
complete solution :) can someone suggest an alternate phrasing for /license
that would not be false? How do we ref
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:55:26 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense
>> my work in the future.
> This sort of relicensing should be done at the direction of Debian; we
> could even write up the license assignment so
On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:41:27 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I am
>> not willing to assign my copyright away.
>>
>> I specifically do not trust the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2007 07:40 AM, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> And considering a lot of other people have infinite more
>>> understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we ca
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I
> am not willing to assign my copyright away.
Yeah, this is precisely why I think giving an unrestrictive license to
SPI acting at the direction of Debian should be an option; some peo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2007 06:12 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:06:08 -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Would you allow the Debian WWW Team (or a DPL delegate for
>> that matter) to relicense your
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:06:08 -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Would you allow the Debian WWW Team (or a DPL delegate for
> that matter) to relicense your work under a DFSG compatible license?
> Or, would you dual-license it GPLv2 and MIT/Expat? That woul
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but
> I am not willing to assign my copyright away.
>
> I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to
> relicense my work in the future.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2007 01:56 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:23:44 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
>>> It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there
>>> isn'
On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:23:44 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there
>> isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge.
> Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented.
> In a
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > And considering a lot of other people have infinite more
> > understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we can't
> > find/contact the contributor and/or he/she decides to not relicense
> > it? Is it possible to remove th
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there
> > isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge.
>
> Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented.
I meant that thing that makes copyright applicable - a modi
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> I remember that some people complained about given their copyright
> to SPI (or $whoever), I think we should go with both options, I'm
> only afraid about having material licensed under incompatible
> licenses (could that happen?).
We'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2007 10:23 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there
>> isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge.
>
> Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2007 11:08 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
>>
>> About a redesign
>>
>>
>> I think that should be done, from time to time, usi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2007 05:51 PM, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
>
>> Even though the timeframe for the removal is rather large (6 months)
>> it would be a nice addition to that service to have the actions e-mail
>> to translators' list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2007 11:03 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
>> The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big
>> improvement over the previous state:
>
> ...the previous state bein
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
> It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there
> isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge.
Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented.
In any event, to resolve this issue completely all that we need is 1)
a GPG signed email f
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a
> wrote:
> > - Debian-legal says that the website license (OPL) not DFSG-free (see
> > http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040312.160816.9f618d1f.html)
>
> This is the same
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
Even though the timeframe for the removal is rather large (6 months) it
would be a nice addition to that service to have the actions e-mail to
translators' lists before they are taken (and content is removed from the
website).
Currently, the only mail produced
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been.
>
> I'm suprised you ask this. Have you read 238245?
Obviously not :)
> Several problems:
>
> - The website claims the Copyright belongs to S
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> This means no content from the site can (legally) be copied over to, for
> example, a GPL-licensed document (such as those produced by the DDP) or a
> GPL program.
For reference, this is #192748 (which was clon
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:25:31PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> >> - Our procedure for out-of-date pages is this, the log of removed
> >>pages is here.
> >
> > That would be nice, actually, an automatic mechanism that would mail the
> > l10n mailings everytime a batch of
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:08:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I'm unsure if we should start contacting contributors and fix the long
> > standing license problem of the website.
>
> What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been.
I'm suprised you ask this. Have you read 2
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
>
> About a redesign
>
>
> I think that should be done, from time to time, using
> proper CSS, to show people that the Web Team is alive and working.
> I'm not saying to
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big
> improvement over the previous state:
...the previous state being that a vendor mails assorted bits of information
to a mail address, and then a human editor *mus
Hello,
with my "CD vendor list editor" hat on:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:25:31PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> >> =
> >> About "Who's using Debian" and CD Vendors
> >> =
> >>
> >>It would be p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/29/2007 08:05 PM, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
>> I would like to know if we have a Web Policy or if we
>> should have one, some small lines, not
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> I would like to know if we have a Web Policy or if we
> should have one, some small lines, nothing complicate, just to
> say:
There's no Policy AFAIK, just the documentation at
www.debian.org/devel/website/
a new mail based on the recent
event and on the constantly quoted website on all sorts of threads.
Ok, while we are at it, please let me try to solve some
long-standing personal doubts, because I would like to help more
with our website. I'm working in the website for a few years now,
an
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:23:34PM -0600, MARCO ALDUCIN wrote:
> I´m a mexican student of Mexico City, my knowledge is
> limited to the Fedora´s user manual v.1.
>
> And my first question: are the instalation commands in
> Debian are the same in the Red Hat Fedora 1 ?.
>
> And what´s the diferen
I´m a mexican student of Mexico City, my knowledge is
limited to the Fedora´s user manual v.1.
And my first question: are the instalation commands in
Debian are the same in the Red Hat Fedora 1 ?.
And what´s the diference between Red Hat Fedora and
Debian distributions?
If my processor is 800Mh
47 matches
Mail list logo
