On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in freedom talk,
as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don't
John Galt wrote:
I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
Perens got leaked to Slashdot. I see part of the problem that the
news people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
skimming the mailinglists as a substitute for timely
William T Wilson writes:
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
In short, you can't do that. You can't
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Peter S Galbraith writes:
(I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
different that saying you can have this GPL code for $1)
In debian.devel.legal, you wrote:
--=20
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address. Do no=
t send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's reply feature. CC's of =
mail=20
to mailing lists are OK. Problem reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED]=
. =20
The poster's
Anthony Towns writes:
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Peter S Galbraith writes:
(I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
different that saying you can have this
Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
concerned to have the opportunity to comment before the story is
published.
I would argue that while a link to the DWN or
Robert Merkel wrote:
Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
concerned to have the opportunity to comment before the story is
published.
Slashdot ain't the
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
It seems to me, then, that we
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:41:30AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
As much as anything with commercial in the name makes me feel saddened
just to talk about it, something like this clearly needs to be done. Yes.
This is definitely a good idea. Much as I sometimes
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Don Marti wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
in some countries should not be treated like programs
restricted by their authors.
gimp-nonfree
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:15:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in freedom talk,
as RMS puts it.
I think that this is an idea whose time has really come-- to make a 100%
(TOTALLY) free distro _as good as the commercial/proprietaryish ones for
end users_ and suitable for heavy use by true geeks as well. This is a
project that I've wished to get involved in for quite some time now, and I
have
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:21:51PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
I know, this will be highly controversive :
SERIOUS SUGGESTION FOR WOODY :
we should get rid of all gif-making packages except 1 package
a2gif in non-free, which will allow you to convert other images to gifs if
you REALLY
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
If they want to restrict to over 18,
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There's even nothing in most of the licenses
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the difference between mere aggregation and a collective work
based on the program?
Murky.
However, *if* Caspian argues that his distribution is a collective
work (which is necessary for him to make reservations about how it can
be
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
--- Forwarded Message
Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law (Corel is a Canadian company)
that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
with a minor.
The open
Erich Forler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which erupt,
It seems to me that the general flame wars are fueled to a very large
degree by the fact that the victim (here: Corel) seemlingly decides
wierd things in private *without* entering a dialogoue
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There doesn't have to be. Their premise is that they can not distribute to
people
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
is there any problem with this package ? It was moved from non-free to main
because of licensing changes, (LGPL for runtime, and QPL for the compiler). I
just received a bug report about there being a new version, ... :(((.
Those three letters: QPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There doesn't have to be.
Then how
Gergely Madarasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If yes, are LGPL and QPL compatible enough for this, meaning may you
link some QPLed objects to LGPLed objects ?
Yes. The LGPL does not require any specific licensing agreement for
executables, as long as the end user gets the source code for the
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then how come the title of this thread?
That's how the thread started.
If they believe so strongly that these licenses would be prohibited as
illegal contracts with minors, then for every piece of IP in Debian that
is written by minors, they have no
From: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.
I'd be more comfortable with that, yes.
I have a little problem in that my company is investing in a Debian project
(The details of that are _not_ yet public knowledge). We want to maintain
On Dec 02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:13:14AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an
On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
Robert Merkel wrote:
Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
concerned to have the opportunity to comment before the story is
Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
Robert Merkel wrote:
Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
concerned to have the opportunity to
On Dec 04, Frank Copeland wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Dec 03, Frank Copeland wrote:
Robert Merkel wrote:
Like it or not, debian is an open project.
In the conventional media, if the news doesn't come from a press
release it's standard procedure for the person or organisation
29 matches
Mail list logo
