On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
But the suggestion has not been taken. The point isn't to
la, 08-03-2003 kello 00:09, David Turner kirjoitti:
It seems to me that there's a lot of stuff that you would want that
gateway to strip or abbreviate. You would want to cut all copyright
notices.
Assuming you would want to, how would you? There is no standard format
for copyright notices,
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030307 22:05]:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forced publication of in-house development considerably increases the
cost of running software.
This is only true when you adopt a high falutin concept of
publication.
Make a tar file,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Take, say, xine as an example. Nice free program. GPLed. Someone wants
to add support for Quicktime to it, but wants to get royalties for
it. The write a Quicktime to mpeg convertor, and put that up on their
website. They require you to pay a
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
But the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Nick Phillips said:
I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather something
connected to the meaning of the source and the achievability of the
source's object.
Can have useful source recovered from it, in a form
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional modification, it's not much
of an issue there. A document
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:56:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
That's not the argument that I understand Debian has for Free Software.
Careful, I'm not sure Debian *has* an argument for Free Software.
It's kind of an axiomatic principle for us. :)
As I understand Debian's position, Free
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:51, Branden Robinson wrote:
Got shot in the face when answering your door? You should have answered
the door in body armor, wearing an iron helmet and wielding an AK-47, or
not answered the door at all.
Almost, except you forgot the right wing's love of the death
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're not serious are you? Include sanitize for undesirable comments,
re-architect to avoid an insecure hack, setup, house, and buy bandwidth
for http and mail servers for all these
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:50:54PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
What exactly am I ignoring here? Nothing here seems to require that
I distribute modified copies.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree with this analysis at all. Translations from one natural
language to another are very lossy things. Ever read Shakespeare
without using the footnotes? How about Chaucer? Magnify that problem
by ten.
I can agree completely. My day
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG WE MUST UNIFY
folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this material to
clarify their OSD into conformance with Debian practice, ie to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:50:54PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to modifications you
make that you do not distribute.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I completely agree with that :-)
Recent comments on this list make it clear that 2a
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
It seems quite usefull to me, at least for starters.
However, if you (or your contributors) could add links to the portions
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
time to the GPL and the BSD camps.
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software
17 matches
Mail list logo
