Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:39:41PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
My big concern at this time is not how Debian comes down on the PHP
License with respect to PHP (and by implication the Pear Group).
I am just trying to insist that if we accept this license as
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
Whatever gave you the idea? The DFSG
Matthew Garrett writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that
we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what
aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much
the same end result.
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
harp over the ambiguous usage of software rather than its subset
free software? I cannot
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
harp over the ambiguous usage of software rather
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
harp over the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long
time.
You
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The fact that different people mean different things when they say
software was enough for us to stop using the word software where the
distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should
either get people to agree
hi
please can you comment these two?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2005/12/msg00398.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg01049.html
please send me a cc:
yours,
gürkan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:07:15 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will
request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and
I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear packages licenced under
the PHP License if
On 12/16/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the following situation:
* Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents
* Those patents are considered to be actively enforced
* Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package
* This code
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:13:06 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Overall, I don't see any strong feeling on this list that this license
is non-free, and that's a reasonable rationale for closing these bugs.
If you think this license is *not* non-free, could you please explain me
why you consider the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:57:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
| 4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
| may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission
| from [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may indicate that your software works in
| conjunction with PHP by
In some countries the LZW patent has expired. In 2006, I believe, the
rest of the patents expire. I think the software can be safely
packaged by now.
andrew
On 12/23/05, Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
please can you comment these two?
Does anyone have any objections to my claims here? If not, then I will
request that new Pear packages using the PHP License be accepted, and
I'll close the current RC bugs against Pear packages licenced under
the PHP License if they upgrade to the most recent version.
[...]
Did you
On 12/21/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Any form of redistribution which connects to the published Team XLink
Orbital Server list resource, for Orbital Server aquisition, or otherwise,
or which interoperates with any existing
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:19:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
* Any form of redistribution which connects to the published Team XLink
Orbital Server list resource, for Orbital Server aquisition, or otherwise,
or which interoperates with any existing software used by other member(s)
19 matches
Mail list logo
