On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 20:13:30 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
Dear Listmasters,
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Clark C. Evans cce at clarkevans.com writes:
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Not only that, but he
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the
topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into
an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great* license comprehension and
comparison skill, much
2013/9/3 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the
topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into
an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great*
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
I wasn't planning on participating in this discussion but, as you said, it
has gotten so out of proportions that I thought it wouldn't be that bad
after all. I share Charles' and Gunnar's point of view, I appreciate
Francesco's
On 01/09/13 16:39, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Perhaps you'd be interested in helping:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/01/msg00043.html
I'll make a better attempt to move this forwards later, but just as a
status update on that suggestion: I think Charles and I both subscribed
to
On 02/09/13 16:06, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
But when an issue becomes such a FAQ (or FRT - Frequently Repeated
Topic), more efficient ways should be found. For example, we could
request the listmasters to add this information as a (short, one-line)
disclaimer to every post to the list, together with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/09/13 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
Francesco, if you want to get Debian to *change its position* on
licenses where you think an error has been made, please start a
discussion in an appropriate forum such as debian-project and Cc:
the ftp
Miriam Ruiz dijo [Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:43:22AM +0200]:
I wasn't planning on participating in this discussion but, as you said, it
has gotten so out of proportions that I thought it wouldn't be that bad
after all. I share Charles' and Gunnar's point of view, I appreciate
Francesco's
Steve Langasek dijo [Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:13:30PM -0700]:
(...)
Since Francesco has made it clear that he has no intention to stop his
abusive use of debian-legal (see below) or even recognize why his behavior
is problematic, I am asking the listmasters to ban him from this mailing
list.
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:04:20AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Steve Langasek dijo [Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:13:30PM -0700]:
So, my request is for you _not_ to ban him, but for Francesco to tone
down. Yes, this might re-escalate later on, and things might be
re-evaluated. But talking about
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:29:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that this discussion is going completely out of proportions.
Francesco always makes sure that his replies contain an informative
answer. In the last part of his emails, he adds his point of view in a
way that it is very
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Not only that, but he reaches out to help you personally and does an
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:29:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that this discussion is going completely out of proportions.
Francesco always makes sure that his replies contain an informative
answer. In the last
While I may be considered a lurker on these lists, I have found
Francesco's feedback consistently insightful and thoughtful. I may not
always agree with some aspects of his views, but I fully believe a ban
would be an unwarranted and brash measure.
Regards,
Philip Paradis
On 9/3/13 07:58 ,
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:49:27PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:24 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express
it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide
Ben Finney dijo [Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:56:59AM +1000]:
Really, by now the regulars here all know what you think about various
licenses and, frankly, we don't care to hear about it any more.
Is this forum only for the regulars, then? Much of the value would, IMO,
be for newcomers raising
Dear Listmasters,
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
However, he also consistently, repeatedly uses the list to
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:30:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Paul,
Frankly speaking, Debian's opinion on the CC licenses does not exist. There
is the empirical observation that this or that CC license is accepted or
rejected from our archive, with both false positives and false
Le Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 11:39:16AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
Perhaps you'd be interested in helping:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/01/msg00043.html
I can not write your explanations for you, sorry. I have read the diff between
the versions 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 mutiple
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:24 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express
it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to
maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Really, by now the regulars here all know what you think about various
licenses and, frankly, we don't care to hear about it any more.
Is this forum only for the regulars, then? Much of the value would, IMO,
be for newcomers raising an issue here even if
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:24 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express
it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to
maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of free software,
as well
Le Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:54:46PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
CC licenses may be perfectly fine in *your* opinion.
Apparently in many other people's opinion, too.
But they are not in *my* opinion.
Sorry, this was not
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Paul Elliott wrote:
A database of place names. Read in as data when the program runs.
Which database are you talking about?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better
than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works.
But that's not the
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better
than any CC license, for both
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
CC licenses may be perfectly fine in *your* opinion.
Apparently in many other people's opinion, too.
But they are not in *my* opinion.
Sorry, this was not *my* opinion, it was *Debian*'s opinion. This *is*
debian-legal, isn't it?
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 20:53:56 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:15:11PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:35:38 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:20:35AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Which Creative Commons license are these
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:15 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
My own opinions below (not any sort of ftp* anything)
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:15:11PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
A database of place names. Read in as data when the program runs.
If these attribute files are really just
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better
than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works.
But that's not the point, anyway.
What I was trying to say was just that having those
My upstream has written a gpl-2 program and
added some Creative commons attribute files in a sub directory
from another project, with CC license.
It is all distributed in one tarball.
I look on the FSF web site and it says these licenses
are incompatible.
But wait, the CC stuff is only data,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:21:00 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
My upstream has written a gpl-2 program and
added some Creative commons attribute files in a sub directory
from another project, with CC license.
Hello,
thanks for taking this kind of issues seriously.
Which Creative Commons
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:20:35AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:21:00 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
My upstream has written a gpl-2 program and
added some Creative commons attribute files in a sub directory
from another project, with CC license.
Hello,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:35:38 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:20:35AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:21:00 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
My upstream has written a gpl-2 program and
added some Creative commons attribute files in a sub
My own opinions below (not any sort of ftp* anything)
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:15:11PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
A database of place names. Read in as data when the program runs.
If these attribute files are really just data read at run-time by the
program, I think that the license
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:15:11PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 04:35:38 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:20:35AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:21:00 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote:
My upstream has written a gpl-2
37 matches
Mail list logo
