On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:30:29AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It's likely that a well-defined question (for a yes/no answer) would get
> >> some results. And as noted before, the appropriate place to ask questions
> >> is not in a newsgroup, b
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's likely that a well-defined question (for a yes/no answer) would get
>> some results. And as noted before, the appropriate place to ask questions
>> is not in a newsgroup, but in the forum mailing list. (I'm not subscribed
>> to that - don't lik
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 09:32:28PM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Over the past 2--3 months, I and others have tried asking David Dawes,
> > and Sue from X-Oz Technologies, Inc., for clarification of several
> > issues related to the new licenses used
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:40:03AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> For some people, this appears to be simply by renaming things.
> Sometimes things get renamed because a copyright license requires them
> to be renamed upon modification (see some versio
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:54:26AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Rather than argue about it(*) simply asking
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:54:26AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:57:24AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >> Perhaps you can point to a specific example. The only mentions I can
> >> recall of copyright changes have been to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:54:19AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> No code from XFree86 after the relicensing on 13 February 2004, or
> >> bearing an X-Oz Technologies, Inc., copyright notice, should be included
> >> in Debian's XFree86 packages (or an
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:40:03AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Would you prefer that they start asserting copyright once they've
> >> completely
> >> rewritten the code?
>
> > Well, I personally would prefer that:
>
> > 1) copyright is not asser
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this message had some errors in clarity, one of them serious.
yes
>> No code from XFree86 after the relicensing on 13 February 2004, or
>> bearing an X-Oz Technologies, Inc., copyright notice, should be included
>> in Debian's XFree86 packages
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:57:24AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Perhaps you can point to a specific example. The only mentions I can
>> recall of copyright changes have been to the Xserver area.
> Here's a list of the relevant changes I know of to
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would you prefer that they start asserting copyright once they've completely
>> rewritten the code?
> Well, I personally would prefer that:
> 1) copyright is not asserted in a file until a substantially expressive cha=
> nge has
>been made to a f
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:57:24AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please be careful with patches from XFree86 -- these are now often tagged
> > indicating that the patch is covered by the XFree86 1.1 license even while
>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:59:20AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In many cases, this copyright is attached even to changes as simple as
> > the following hypothetical example:
>
> Having observed too many "extensive rewrite" changelog comments whi
Sorry, this message had some errors in clarity, one of them serious.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:52:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm being adequately careful IMO, but I'm a paranoid guy, and it is
> worth giving this issues some extra attention.
s/issues/issue/
> No code from XFree86 aft
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 06:24:21PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:59:20AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In many cases, this copyright is attached even to changes as simple as
> > > the following hypothetical example:
> >
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:59:20AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In many cases, this copyright is attached even to changes as simple as
> > the following hypothetical example:
>
> Having observed too many "extensive rewrite" changelog comments which
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In many cases, this copyright is attached even to changes as simple as
> the following hypothetical example:
Having observed too many "extensive rewrite" changelog comments which were
little more than cosmetic changes, it's hard to say where to draw t
Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please be careful with patches from XFree86 -- these are now often tagged
> indicating that the patch is covered by the XFree86 1.1 license even while
> the files patched are not. I don't know the legal status of files patched
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:27:31PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Please be careful with patches from XFree86 -- these are now often tagged
> indicating that the patch is covered by the XFree86 1.1 license even while
> the files patched are not. I don't know the legal status of
Please be careful with patches from XFree86 -- these are now often tagged
indicating that the patch is covered by the XFree86 1.1 license even while
the files patched are not. I don't know the legal status of files patched
like this, but it seems best to get fixes from upstream and bypas
20 matches
Mail list logo
