On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:44:42AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > As you well know, the role of "spokesman for Debian" was arrogated by
> > Joseph Carter, who failed to, as I recall, accurately convey to
> > TrollTech the concerns
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed
> > it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL.
>
> As you well know, the role of "spokesman for Debian" was arrogated by
> Joseph Carter, who fai
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:39:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
> > way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our "deprecation" of such
> > licenses to be
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
> way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our "deprecation" of such
> licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating
> the "spiri
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:48:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think we have two sorts of free licenses. One set, which includes BSD
> and GPL licenses, which basically give users and authors the same rights;
> and the other set, which includes the QPL and licenses with patch clauses,
> which g
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:17:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But free software was never about forcing people to contribute back.
> No, but the GPL is about forcing people to pass the freedoms they have
> onto their users.
>
> Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral
6 matches
Mail list logo
