[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt
worked up enough to do anything about.
to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:
I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.
One of Debian's main
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt
worked up
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project?
You mean to SPI? No. On purpose, I'd say. Those of us who would assign
over copyright of our works would probably do so to the FSF, but that's
IMHO.
--
One disk to rule them
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:
I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG
Scripsit Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors
get to choose their license as they wish.
Of course there is no other way we _can_ go. If somebody decides to
write cool, useful OS infrastructure software and license it under the
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the question was why they
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a
DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons:
I was not specifically referring to the CDDL. There are other non-GPL
compatible free software licenses.
I strongly agree that if the
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
against the spirit of the DFSG?
I disagree. It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Jaldhar H Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not
make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise
DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather
they who hold copyright) ought to consider it.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
(It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
investigated it
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the question was why they
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
against the spirit of the DFSG?
You really want to claim the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG?
Ok because Henning made the same mistake in comprehension let me clarify.
What I
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I was saying is that licensing _only_ under the GPL violates the
spirit of the DFSG because the DFSG specifically also allows for software
licenses which are not GPL compatible to be considered free.
What you are saying is still wrong.
The
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never
felt worked up
17 matches
Mail list logo
