.
--
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
to say that double-clicking or issuing a
get foo to your download client isn't enough to constitute acceptance of
a license.
- --
* You are not expected to understand this.
- --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's
are not expected to understand this.
--comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who: finger me for GPG key
for a license, but the term license for
that is rather ambiguous, I'd agree.
- --
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9slt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:30:04AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that you have recourse if sued to go after the one
that linked to Qt.
But we did not exhaustively catalog every case.
- --
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9rNRO+ZSKG3nWr3ARAgA
of an issue in 17 minutes flat.
- --
The early worm gets the bird.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9k3yT+ZSKG3nWr3ARAoIHAJ0XvF12Zaq5feJuMjzwZbhwjsGM6ACdGl3a
pQb
was sent to me by the FreeBSD port maintainer, I put
it for now on
http://people.debian.org/~rene/debian/muttprint/addons/images/Beastie.eps
[2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/muttprint/files/patch-ae
--
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Prepare for armageddon, we agree...:)
On 16 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The BSD Daemon is under the license at
http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html
The big problem
to go in contrib then?
Thanks,
Ardo
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
wrote:
Is this solution OK for everybody?
I see nothing objectionable from a DFSG perspective in the language you
have proposed.
Thanks for working on this issue!
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9DCfO+ZSKG3nWr3ARAuJLAJ9lXoNTgR2mrwVQGDOtoWVOuQrG9gCfd/8X
TI6iPb9nir3U5t9XUI93h7Q=
=eLvU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
Perhaps
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
actually already in source form.
A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal
Turing machine can
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
The context was not asking that question.
No, in context
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
include a perlscript must necessarily include
does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped
on Australia.
snip
- --
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
To: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, yeah.
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
Blah blah blah. Who said you did?
Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list?
--
There is no problem so great
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Were you addressed, um, *ever* on this list?
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um, yeah.
How would you know? Because they used your name? No, that's not it.
Waah! It's all about me losing
,
--
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sorry, did I say anything to you at all?
On 7 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It prohibits pseudonymous/anonymous modification, which may very well be a
no-op, but pseudonymity is outside the scope of Debian as I am repeatedly
and consistently
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
Hello
Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting. Just forget about
that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies
with Joes requirements. Unfortunately I doubt we will not find such
a license.
Kind regards
to write it into his license.
Regards,
Joey
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually they are, if they wish to effectively maintain the copyright:
They can choose to enforce against some people and not others, and
have complete liberty. By failing to prosecute one violation
promptly
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
The current license in full is:
Terminology
---
1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The `source
with any
distribution or redistribution of this source code, and with any
subsequent program distribution.
Wookey
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
. This limitation will apply even if NSA has
been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a
reasonable allocation of risk.
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
itself by quoting it for critical purposed.
Of course, in a society where Fair Use is recognized, that's not the
case, but I'm not sure the United States is such a society these days.
However, that's beyond the scope of this mail.
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John
version of Qt), not because the QPL was non-free.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Ryszard Lach wrote:
I'm very sorry, I forgotten the attachment.
Ryszard Lach.
--
* You are not expected to understand this.
--comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
?
Hamish
--
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Martin Luther King
Oklahoma City, OK 73111-4298
Tel.: (405) 425-2549
Fax: (405) 425-2554
-Original Message-
From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 1:45 AM
To: Jochen Röhrig
Cc: Walter Landry; debian-legal@lists.debian.org;
debian-s390@lists.debian.org
this is not true.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit
Debian needs permission to modify as well. There has been a substantial
non-interest in .LZW decompressors since the Unisys thing in '94, so I
doubt that lha would be put in main
Please tell me what
, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Replying to my own message, with a WORKING colon key.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, John Galt wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
want to process. It seems that the standard program for dealing with
the archives, lha
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:17:27PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
want to process. It seems that the standard program for dealing
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
IANAL.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:37:11PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
A license is a contract, and wording within is binding.
Even on people under 18 years of age? I think this is the biggest
I was mostly talking about binding on the developers
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm snipping the normal John Galt obstructionism, off-topic political
commentary, and attempts to confuse issues, and responding only to the
real questions.
No, snippage around you usually means an attempt to redefine the argument.
John Galt [EMAIL
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume of course that you have cites on this? Please provide them.
Cites? What on earth are you talking about?
Had you quoted the entirety, it would have been patently obvious.
Your paragraph that the cite
for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
As a necessary evil :) Seriously, the only
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
five:
1) the list of thirty names
If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.
True
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
2) the group/readme
If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
a hassle!)
I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.
?
The group name would
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
groups start to get the same rights. It's as screwed up
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) the list of thirty names
This is annoying, but works fine.
What are you trying to say here that hasn't already been said?
2) the group/readme
This is dangerous, because the group has no legal reality
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives? If so, then yeah, I
was shocked and dismayed to see something resembling a backbone
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but this is also precedent setting: the first time that a
choice of law of a state where UCITA is in effect (it took effect 7/1) has
been used in an otherwise free license that was submitted
a release cycle (unless, of course, the release cycles get much
longer, in which case the copyright would expire before the next release :).
Again, the URL is http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/ucitaFinal00.htm
for those of you playing along at home
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, John Galt wrote:
On Tue
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, part of the FUD is courtesy of the FSF...
http:www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
Um, that's not FUD, though it's a little F. But it's why UCITA is a
bad law. It's not why we can't use a free
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
to obtain complete source code for the OpenPBS software and any
modifications and/or additions to the OpenPBS software. The source code
must
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the XFree86 license, it's tough to find a restriction, but they have
one:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
You are patently attempting to misread the license
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
GPL-ish stuff, the only problem is that you theoretically cannot use the
OpenPBS license on contributed code, since it implies restrictions (there
goes DFSG 3). In fact, the only way you could theoretically
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I am trying to misread the license. Worse yet, I'm succeeding.
Hrm. Maybe you're actually Yogi Berra redivivus.
Clause 5 is capable of being construed in a manner that denies the right
of modification
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
DFSG doesn't require that we
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:16:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, it requires releasability under the SAME license. Clause 5
requires modifications to be released with NO restrictions at all,
and all licenses necessarily restrict rights, including
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possibly, but I'm not convinced that I have yet.
Is there a reason anyone associated with Debian should bother trying
to convince you?
Only the obvious ones. But, no, there's really no reason for anyone
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This solves one of my problems. The second is more thorny.
It seems that the PBS license has the choice of law clause for Virginia, a
UCTIA state. In the past, this was enough to make a license questionable
is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
I really hope this is the last post on this *way* off-topic subthread.
I've set Mail-Followup-To accordingly, I hope you respect that.
EOT here.
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
not good enough for you to start on your John Galt's not part of Debian
kick, but you now have to start on others?! I have some suggestions
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, John Galt wrote:
legality really has little to do with fairness in the sense you were using
it.
Replying to myself: there ws supposed to be a URL here, but I deleted it
and forgot to delete the commentary. FWIW here's the deleted URL...
http://www.guerrillanews.com
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it isn't. Debian's one of my favorite distros, and I hate to see it
being brought down by the likes of you. Every time you tell someone that
they aren't a part of Debian, at least one person (more likely five
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not. What is supposed to alienate everyone is YOU telling them that
they aren't. Telling ME is one thing: I figure that if they don't know
enough about Debian that they know who all the flame-warriors
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would assume that Hoffman is also aware that he's not a developer.
Why is it supposed to alienate someone to remind them that certain
lists are primarily for the use of developers, not users?
Because
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
noticed, we place a priority on real identities. Or haven't you
No. Our priorities are our users and free software. I really don't
remember real identities of those connected with Debian in there...
noticed
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hrm. I'm trying to figure out how you can quote something without reading
it.you know, I just can't
feature it.
The front page of lists.debian.org defines certain
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you? I can think of three packages that the maintainer is acting in an
unaccoutable and irresponsible way. You may even think you know which
ones: I'm sure the DD responsible knows what I think of them. I
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or
may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the
listmasters for a reason, you know.
The term Developers in Debian
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You know, I'd say that no employer is going to give two shits about
activity on a mailing list, but your past actions speak of a willingness
to try to give the lie to that statement. The only relevant issue
just before the grant of
monopoly (ie copyright).
Thomas
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
On 26 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
It's the name of the operating system.
The operating system
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
No, but it IS my response
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might, and one might be right. Remember, the US legal system is
based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
by the people, not vice-versa. This means that if there isn't a law
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:39:02PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually, you can. So long as the final result stays in the possession
of the person who did the linking, this is not a COPYright issue, but
a property right issue. This is the epitome of fair
be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:00:57PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
...thus it's giving credit where credit is due to the GNU foundation.
Sure.
Last exchange, you said it wasn't. Message ID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as if I had to point it out.
For example, apache when
On 23 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
In Harper
Explosives.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 05:19:08PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually, the installer would go into contrib, unless you're planning to
use a non-DFSG-free license for the installer itself. The program itself
is DFSG free, it just depends on (gets
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
From: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: three send back changes clauses
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:13:21 -0600 (MDT)
effort. Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make
that it cannot be solved with suitable
application of High Explosives.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
it's best efforts to purge
all WHOIS information out of it's databases :) I'm guessing they got rid
of three emails...
Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with suitable
application of High Explosives.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's
the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
thus does not stay true to our ideals.
It can be worded that Debian
appreciated.
Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
Is Apache renamed? libapache-mod-backhand uses the Apache license
verbatim...
Richard Braakman
- --
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, James Bromberger wrote:
Dear Legal List,
I have been asked to bring the licence for a package I am preparing for
unstable, which I am hoping will go into main, to this list hoping to
get a concensus that the licence is DSFG OK.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Apr 2001, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called mod_backhand
*nor may mod_backhand appear in their names without prior written
*permission
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
