On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package
and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of
the peoples you will have to convince and who has the
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a
comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be
happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this
problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about it,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a
comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be
happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we
could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the
previous messages on this thread.
Look, the procedure is to ask debian-legal. Sometimes things take
discussion and time.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long
long legal disquisition.
Sorry, wrong list for that ;)
Why, if you tell him clearly that it is not DFSG free, then the package will
go into non-free, and that
Hi,
mmmh, this should probably be on debian-project or something...
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the
DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may
well be forgotten for another similar problem in the future, or will it be
filled somewhere accesible and
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:00:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we
could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the
previous messages on this thread.
Look, the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the
DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may
well be forgotten for another
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ...
Um, you didn't get totally ignored. Your complaint was that you
didn't get an instant unequivocal answer.
I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian
tasks aside, and well,
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff.
(it would need a vote though, isn't it ?
And discussion somewhere else. :)
But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from
outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and
Scripsit Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
At the QA following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's
different (I believe RMS used the term
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we
interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit
about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpret it
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:23:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff.
(it would need a vote though, isn't it ?
And discussion somewhere else. :)
Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:15:34AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
At the QA following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's
different (I believe RMS used the term weaker which may be more
appropriate)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
[...]
The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and
what not.
[...]
So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debian
So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause
*very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be
permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is
distributed on.
Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
[...]
The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU
system and what not.
[...]
So
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
[...]
The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not
acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and
what
... I managed to obtain another version of their notes for the book
redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian
distribution, and
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
... I managed to obtain another version of their notes for the book
redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Can someone
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:28:59PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
And these are the new notes that O'Reilly wants to be present in the
debian package of the book.
I think that this note must be located within the book and at the
download location as well, since it must not be specific to
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:55:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
O'Reilly wants that each copy of the book contains these notes.
The web site is maintained by O'Reilly and I can't force them to modify
the content of the web site, if they don't do so one can't distribute
the book
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best
to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to
include, and one that we can harmlessly
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be
resolved.
Not quite,
Do they intend this as a notes or a license?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- commercial products that include this document are themselves
compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
What's the point of the first statement: are
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:15:39PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
recently (Colin Watson was
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe
debian-dfsg-modifications ?
Right now, there are people who think we are not allowed to even
modify the DFSG. All that discussion is for debian-vote, I guess.
Mmm, not sure, the DFSG is more than
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian because
of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we would
not like being removed. But again, it can be dealt with at another time.
If you know of any, we should
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- commercial products that include this document are themselves
compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
This condition is not consistent with the DFSG. The DFSG requires
that a program (or manual) be able to be
30 matches
Mail list logo
