Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is not the only issue with the MPL -- as Mike Hommey recently
reminded -legal, there are others[1]. [...]
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Don't trust everything you read so much. That draft summary was
written by a newbie
Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:22:31 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in
El lunes, 3 de abril de 2006 a las 13:02:58 +1000, Craig Southeren escribía:
If Debian is not ensuring that all source code for it's distribution is
publically available via it's archives, then I agree that this is not
only a problem for Debian, but it is definitaly a problem for downstream
Scripsit Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the same licenses that provide this freedom requires the distributor
to make the source code available for the appropriate period regardless
of what the upstream developer does.
For free software, the appropriate period is exactly as long as
Hi there!
As my master's thesis, I am developing a new Argument Mapping tool.
(
Argument mapping is a method, that aims to make handling complicated
arguments and debates easier and more efficient (or at all possible,
above a certain difficulty level).
* The essence of the method is that
Francesco Poli wrote:
A package that includes a part which is licensed in a non-free
manner does *not* comply with the DFSG. I cannot extract that part
of FlameRobin source code (namely the IBPP C++ classes) and
exercise the freedoms the DFSG guarantee. Therefore, FlameRobin
does not meet
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some
off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok
for Debian.
Nice to learn that copyright infringement is alive and well(!)
In short, I think it technically meets the
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
maintainer of the package. Reasons for this happening are numerous;
trivial example is an urgent fix when the maintainer
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
maintainer of the package. Reasons
Csillag Kristóf wrote:
Hi there!
As my master's thesis, I am developing a new Argument Mapping tool.
Cool. Will it become free software?
An ideal thread for my example would look like this:
- Revolts around one (or very few) basic decisions
I assume you mean 'revolves', not 'revolts'
Sorry for replying twice, but the LPPL (LaTeX Public Project License)
stuff --- the new version which was, in large part, driven by -legal,
would be interesting too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is not guaranteed to be publically available, then yes, I think
that could be a problem regardless of whether the license is MPL or GPL.
The
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:13:24 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
after all, the one with commit access). Given Debian's persistent
problems with MIA maintainers, it —
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:37 -0700
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is not guaranteed to be publically available, then yes, I think
that
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
after all, the one
Craig Southeren writes:
[snip]
Section 3 of the GPL states that the source code for a binary-only
distribution must be available on demand for three years.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
To all,
OK - I've just gone through and re-re-re-read the posts, and I think I
now see the point everyone is making:
1) The GPL provide three alternate and equivalent delivery mechanisms
for binary distributions. Only one of them (physical delivery of media
as defines in 3b) has a time limit
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 12:55:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, I expect it will be more
efficient if we can approach the FSF for a blanket license change.
No; from what we can tell, RMS is personally blocking even the simplest and
most obvious license
On 04 Apr 2006 00:04:32 -0400
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..deleted
[snip]
The MPL specifies (see para 3.2) that source must be provided via an
agreed Electronic Distribution Mechanism, which is defined as (see
para 1.4) ...a mechanism generally accepted in the software
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:51:05PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
As a user, the seems
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:22:50PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:37 -0700
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:23:09PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
Because if it is Debian policy to distribute binaries where the source
code is
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:36:42PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU
23 matches
Mail list logo
