You're not going to believe what's happening
to me now.someone is doing an experiment on me.I mean an
experiment on a living creature.
it's kind of hard to explain this
situation.
Base: liquid
thing interacting with human body in itself.1. they raise some
koreans(about 20) and put liquid
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:45:27PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
The website is hosted by Verio, Inc. in Colorado, USA, and the mail sent
through another US ISP: Cox Communications, Inc in California. Is there
anything in US Federal or state law that would support a prosecution for
interfering
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 07:06, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:45:27PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
The website is hosted by Verio, Inc. in Colorado, USA, and the mail sent
through another US ISP: Cox Communications, Inc in California. Is there
anything in US Federal or state
CUPS now appears to include the following exception to the GPL.
Besides how ambiguous this is, does it discriminate against
fields of endeavor, e.g., producing non-Mac software, in
violation of DFSG 6?
If it does, it'd be a really weird case ;-)
APPLE OPERATING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LICENSE
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CUPS now appears to include the following exception to the
GPL. Besides how ambiguous this is, does it discriminate against
fields of endeavor, e.g., producing non-Mac software, in violation of
DFSG 6?
I think there are consensus for allowing
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
If the existence of such an exception made software non-free, then
DFSG-free software could be made
Scripsit Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
If not consensus, then at least there is precedence. As long as the
license gives everyone without
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive
discrimination.
Wichert There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
This has come up several times over the last two years. As
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
Wichert.
It's been discussed before, but I couldn't point you to a thread. It's
okay to license something under the GPL for everybody, and
Jeff Licquia wrote:
...
It is weird. I think they would have been better off just
dual-licensing with a non-free Mac-specific license; they hold the full
copyright, after all.
OTOH, I think I know where this is coming from. Apple really seems to
like CUPS, and is paying Easy Software Products
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
We've done it before, with the IBMPL/CPL.
I think the discussion happened
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
This particular kind of positive discrimination is fine--there's
nothing we can do to stop it,
Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
On 14 May 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
The reasoning is that it would be absurd to call license A free and
license B non-free if every recipient has at least as much freedom
with license B
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 09:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
In this particular case it doesn't look like the extended rights
are viral in this setting, so there ought to be no problem here.
(But I haven't looked up the context of the language that was quoted
some articles ago, so I may be wrong).
The
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote:
The license exception is there specifically so that MacOS and Darwin
developers can link against libcupsimage or derive their own code
from various parts of CUPS without worrying about the GPL or
licensing CUPS themselves. The
Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
Operating System (Apple OS-Developed Software), including but not
limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS
imaging
Quoting the referenced message, for those who don't have it handy:
(RMS)
The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of
Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under
the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise,
it is not
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Michael Sweet
Glenn wrote:
The license exception is there specifically so that MacOS and
Darwin developers can link against libcupsimage or derive their
own code from various
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 07:53, Peter Makholm wrote:
That is as long the license doesn't make any non-free restrictions for
anyone it is acceptable to give more freedom to some people.
Good. Because, as I said, that would of made a very weird case of
something being non-DFSG-free.
signature.asc
On 14-May-2002 Santiago Vila wrote:
Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
Operating System (Apple OS-Developed Software), including but not
limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
backends for an Apple Operating System, that
21 matches
Mail list logo
