On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:17:26AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the merits
of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group like Apache
doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion about licenses under
development.
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have an opinion - the DFSG. Anything beyond that is mere noise.
Well, that's the problem. External free software projects can read and
interpret the DFSG, but that doesn't provide much assurance that their
software won't end up in non-free and
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at least - has very little to do with an
Scripsit Daniel Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I was saying that if advance approval was the practice,
Advance approval will never happen in any form that I think you'd find
useful. If we advance approved something it would mean that we cound
not act if we later discovered a non-free facet of
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I was saying that if advance approval was the practice,
Advance approval will never happen in any form that I think you'd find
useful. If we advance approved something it would mean that we cound
not act if we later discovered a non-free facet
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
However, while debian-legal is a useful forum for discussing the
merits of licenses and possible incompatibilities, an outside group
like Apache doesn't seem to be able to get a definitive opinion
about licenses under development.
In this particular
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:46:40AM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Given the intransigence at the other end, and the clarity of the
situation, shouldn't this issue be bumped over to SPI? It seems like
it is part of SPI's mandate to arrange for lawyers to send threatening
letters and to follow
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at
Dear Dr. Rutschmann,
You recently mentioned on debian-legal, concerning a package for EEG
data processing,
The software is totally under GPL but ships with a graphical
head-model that is confined to the use with tempo itself. (And this
model is needed)
May I ask what kind of a head model
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
It concerned E-Lisp APIs. If you call cons or even unwind-protect,
that's clearly not copyrightable. But if you call
gnus-agent-cat-downloadable-faces, that's an internal function
call
An internal function call is not an API, and it is
10 matches
Mail list logo
