relatively
recently, so let's not start calling it classic. Programs are the
classic case.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the use of ordinary source control as a valuable
contribution to free software.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
screwed over by it is unimportant.
It's discouraging that people are thankful that's all it is ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:49:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about binaries via BitTorrent, source via HTTP? BT would be more
capable than HTTP for many projects' binaries, and HTTP more capable for
source, where a lot
you must use. I hope the GPLv3's
exception isn't meant to extend to that.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, or are you just engaging in casual libel?
Is feeding them until their stomachs rupture considered an effective
way of dealing with trolls? :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
code
reuse to be important at all.
(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on,
and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse. It seems
like a compromise whose time has passed.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
changes to make it fit the project would violate the license.
If that worst case is as rare as I think it is, is it noticably worse
than the GPL's effective requirement to keep DVDs full of source code
on-hand at expos?
I'd qualify that as annoying, not as showstopper to code reuse.
--
Glenn
to getting the work done.
This is a rephrasing of code reuse isn't really all that important.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided
used in, say,
the US.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
source code.
When keeping things simple prohibits legitimate uses, uses which are
not fundamentally at odds with the GPL, you have an oversimplification.
I don't think collateral damage of this kind should be accepted lightly.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
clearly not. This has never come up on the list before,
so it hasn't been widely explored; I'm not aware of this clause ever
actually being used.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
It's intended to be max, but this could be clearer. I had to read it
twice.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on the program's copyright notice.
By the way, you probably mean translated copyright text, not copyright
notice. (The copyright notice is eg. (c) 2005 )
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
idiocy, then at least something useful has
come out of it), and they're a core dependency of the primary function of
the list.
(That said, I don't really care if they're on -project--as far as I'm
concerned, they're on-topic to both lists.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
(on the grounds of copyright misuse
raised to the level of antitrust violation) just to save bandwidth.
*plonk*
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
The two are intertwined: d-legal interprets licenses to figure out if they
meet the DFSG, which intrinsically requires interpreting the DFSG, too.
That said, if not d-legal, then at least d-project.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
troll, given its
tone and irrelevance. Feeds the trolls if you like, though. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* available under the GPL, then that's fine.
It's silly (just dual-license it under the GPL to begin with), but
you can just do the one-time-linking, remove it, and then remove
the weird text (which is no longer relevant). But I don't know why
they'd intend this.
--
Glenn Maynard
get to change that by
redefining the term derivative work.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:35:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:58:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:50:54AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The source code for the documentation is embedded as comments in the
program source code
hope of that).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it--the compiler wasn't source to begin
with.
(If there's some other rationale for the GPL explicitly includes such tools
as 'source', I missed it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is a non-binding clause, it's not a big deal.
In case you missed them, by the way, there's already been two other
replies on d-legal that agree that this clause is free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
think it's self-evidently DFSG-free for a license to say may not be
called Foobar, and annoying and borderline to say may not contain the
word Foobar. If you're claiming the *former* is non-free, you're
making a pretty controversial claim and will have a lot of convincing
to do.
--
Glenn Maynard
the software--but I'm not sure how that's interesting.
(Please don't top-post.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
restrictions it wants,
as long as it allows modifications and derived works under some obscure
circumstances. You may only modify the software on Halloween while eating
a live bulldog is free--hey, it allows modifications.
Sorry for the noise. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
.
[1] The Apache license has since changed; Apache is just an easy word
to make an example with.
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00980.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00229.html
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
an alternative server, for pratical reasons, it's non-free.
The purpose of software very rarely (if ever) has any relevance to the
freeness of its license. The clause is no less non-free if someone
starts up an alternative server, and it would be just as non-free if
applied to dpkg or ls.
--
Glenn
to include a dead link. But there are bigger
licensing problems in the world, and limited time to fight for them ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sure that's not what you intended,
but that's what it seems to come down to.)
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.
(Whether anyone has filed similar bugs against PHP, however, is not.)
--
Glenn
* of the permission of this license, you
must agree to Norway, so it's a restriction on every freedom.)
Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to
help the community.
If the FSF's definition allows onerous restrictions that Debian's does
not, then I disagree.
--
Glenn
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:46:38AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
And that's where they really differ: different people implement them.
Is to redistribute the work, you must agree to a venue of Norway
Isn't the choice of venue clause one of the reasons for MPL
manage to ignore threads I don't care about without even using a killfile
(and there are plenty of those on d-devel). I just don't see a problem
being fixed by squelching useful peripheral discussions.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
views, but this list is not an appropriate avenue for
expressing them.
It's always fascinating when someone's first post to a list is to tell
others what they're allowed to talk about on it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
it'd
be nice if Debian had enough of a stance on this sort of thing--beyond
leave it up to the maintainer--to avoid one SNES emulator ending up in
main and the other in contrib.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
to claim endorsement that you don't have?
Shouldn't it be enough to add a non-binding footnote saying as much:
if you modify this, you don't have our endorsement, so don't claim it,
and use those existing laws to enforce it, rather than trying to bend
copyright to do so?
--
Glenn Maynard
more sense to me to require that the
few people posting to a list unsubscribed set a header saying so, than
the majority of people posting subscribed do so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an argument for abolishing contrib
and merging it with main, saying nothing really requires anything else.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
corporation and getting PHP from
that particular URL is no longer free); can't translate it if your target
audience is Swedish. These issues so far havn't been considered DFSG-unfree,
but they're good indicators of poorly-conceived licenses.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
works of PHP sounds like someone misinterpreted
the FSF's claims, and ended up believing that the source of a program is a
derivative work of its libraries. (That, unlike the FSF's claims, seems
to make very little reasonable sense.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
the power of copyright, and it's not the first time
I've had this impression.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
holder in this case is the FSF, it's probably best to
just ask them. I'd be interested in their response on this, so if anyone
does, please get permission to repost their reply to the list.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
.
They have a general practice of requiring copyright transfer in writing
before accepting contributions. I don't know which projects they have
this policy for, or if there are people with contributions predating it,
but it does seem appropriate to direct this question to them.
--
Glenn Maynard
papers shouldn't have to be free will debate theirs.
Both of these are after the fact. What should happen is what is happening:
debate the issue in advance, and make a decision based on that.
[1] To be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone in this conversation.
--
Glenn Maynard
-free them;
however, I'm a bit interested to understand the rationale behind not wanting
to, from people who are beyond I don't want people putting words in my
mouth responses. (But I understand not wanting to spend time arguing
*against* DFSG-freeness.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
to include the new copyright statement. A CD with this software on it burnt
in 2005 can no longer be distributed, according to this license, in 2006.
And worse, such a copyright notice would be flatly incorrect; this says
that I must make false copyright claims to distribute the software!
--
Glenn
the GPL, so it should
be very likely.
(We probably agree that such a relicensing is taking far too long for a DFSG-
fixing grace period, even for Mozilla.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit
disappointed that you're essentially saying even if this license is
non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway, though.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of
energy.
In any event, I think this license's additions are extremely non-free
in and of themselves, regardless of the MPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the nasty source-of-venue and
keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link
at [1] (too long to be posted here)
Do you agree that the license is non-free? (It sounds like you do, calling
those clauses nasty and all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
license.
In opened software, We are all developers.
I think he meant to say the copyright holder. In free software, we are
not all the copyright holder.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it for you. (As one of your premeses is that the GPL is a
contract, and Eben Moglen's public position, last I heard[1], was that the
GPL is not a contract, I doubt he'd agree with your conclusion.)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Licenses are not
contracts.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
Feel free to ask him. I'd need to be convinced further before I'd
consider taking up his time with this, though.
(By the way, I seem to recall that Eben is no longer general counsel
for the FSF, and it may be more appropriate to ask the FSF directly.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
somebody will write a program under this license, and call it something
like Mail or Linux. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. This is also a boring semantic argument, of course--there
are certainly better ones--but you seem to be unaware of it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:44:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source
fundamental to having a free program.
Because it is, damnit?
No, because one provided source, and the other
in case
his program were used by Marilyn Manson (he could even change the
license), but that's to the case now.
Personally, I think if God cares, he'd be pleased to see Manson exercising
his freedom by making music disparaging Him. (And I agree with Francesco.)
--
Glenn Maynard
(such as we can't
build this source). I just can't agree that a freely-licensed work, with
source (such as an image with povray source) can be accurately branded non-
free because the tools to build that source are non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
do this one because it's my interpretation.
(And, as a final note, modern hinted fonts do, in fact, contain programs.
I only mention this because Andreas, saying obviously, seems to not know
that.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
as slightly non-free is better
than onerously non-free--better, but not good enough.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
it harder to understand.
The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source
and isn't acceptable
as such--even though a program that was actually written in assembly
and resulted in the same thing would be.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CF13D100AA9BC; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an unpractical form
less the preferred form
for modification.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
actually written that way, eg. obfuscated code
contests, just to cover the canonical exception
--
Glenn Maynard
it wants that particular piece of
software more than it wants to stick to its founding principles. If Debian
is going to drop its principles and loosen the Social Contract, so be it,
but don't try to hide it by pretending obfuscated code is source.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
was export
regulations; US users could add non-us to their sources without worry.
How can I get an overview of all the packages in non-US? Looking on
Debian mirrors just reveals empty packages files:
Non-US is no longer used.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
be relevant to freeness or be a GPL violation.
It's the text and requirements of the license that matters, not menu titles.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to redistribute.
Michael answered #2.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in question,
and requiring #2 is infinitely more invasive and problematic than #1.
I don't know how you can keep claiming that #1 == #2; they have nothing
in common.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(click-wrap licenses) and then call absurd someone's agreement with
that contention. Can you please clarify this disconnect?
It's absurd to say that a license is impractical, and to cliam in the
same breath that the license is free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said
are ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than the uploader? If so, that's
a new one to me, and I'd be interested in hearing supporting arguments.
(That would make the word distributor very confusing.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
appropriate subthread.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has downloaded GPL software has violated copyright, which means there's
a flaw in the license. There's just no clause that I can find that a person
downloading the software can be argued to have used in doing so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
be best to shelve this
discussion until one comes along.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--we require the freedom to modify and
distribute, but license restrictions that make those freedoms impractical
to exercise are fine!
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a
click-wrap is free, and I'm close to throwing my hands in the air in
frustration and doing something less maddening for a while, since I feel
that suggesting that a you must be eaten by a lion to be allowed to
distribute this software license is non-free would meet disagreement.)
--
Glenn Maynard
agreement for the GPL; that's just confusion,
or maybe people dropping the GPL into a default paste your license
here installer template ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explain how I've agreed to anything. You're arguing that the
warranty disclaimer isn't binding, not that the GPL is a contract.
(I won't debate whether warranty disclaimers work that way, since I
don't know.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
that this is an expected place for a licensee would arrive,
especially combined with the FSF's trumpeting of the GPL is not a
contract.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, by Glenn Maynard, particularly if already
disinclined to grant benefit of the doubt to the Debian Project and its
parterns as a result of being tortiously wronged due to copyright
violations, might be very much inclined to take a number of actions.
Posts such as those of Maynards aren't merely
right to respond
(flames which, by the way, were expressly made *after* the issue you refer
to was resolved); and I prefer to openly drop an argument than to leave
a thread dangling. I don't feel inconsistent in doing so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
it is unacceptable for Debian to do so. I
don't know how you can confuse the two.
The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing so, is enough for
me to agree with Joey's decision.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
instead.
I don't see (c) happening; if it is, then Karsten's complaint was
unclear (which shouldn't be surprising, given its length). Karsten
is asserting that a) is doing the wrong thing, which is ridiculous.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
ethical or moral way
(legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian
maintainers to include a work in future releases against their will and
judgement is.
[1] assuming that the stable release gets fixed soon, of course
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
the problem,
so I have zero tolerance for Karsten's demanding, who-do-you-think-
you-are, you-can't-remove-my-work, fix-it-my-way-or-else, I'm-going-
over-your-head attitude.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
the
material as it's rewritten), as far as I can see. Unless someone has
something new to add, I'm dropping this.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, both in unstable and
in existing stable releases--either credit the author, or stop using it;
nobody is claiming that doing nothing is an acceptable option.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
101 - 200 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
