Ben Finney wrote:
But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is referring
to a license *from government* specific to design, construction,
operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and nothing to do with
copyright: the government does not license the recipient for these
* Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com [120915 20:38]:
I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
Steve Langasek wrote:
This is a
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
* Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com [120915 20:38]:
I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
*
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:35:09 -0500 Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hi everyone,
Hello Raphael,
mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
Thanks for asking.
Please note that you may receive multiple and possibly
* Raphael Geissert:
TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to
distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca-
certificates, Fedora says it is non-free.
What do the others think about it?
If we take CA certificate license
Chris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline.
I'll call me wrong:
09:31 Ganneff svuorela: name the/a organisation, not
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:25:21 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
[...]
Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test.
This has been asked a number of times on debian-legal and has already
been answered:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00215.html
Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is
referring to a license *from government* specific to design,
construction, operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and
nothing to do with copyright: the government
Francesco Poli wrote:
Please let's try and avoid running in circles...
*rotfl*
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs. --
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:39:23PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
Steve Langasek wrote:
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Chris wrote:
I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test.
Hi Steve,
I think that the dissident test and others are indirectly
Le Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Raphael Geissert a écrit :
Hi everyone,
mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote:
[...]
ca-certificates packeages
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
This is a standard No warranty clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US.
It is not a
13 matches
Mail list logo
