Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
In this software the problem is two folds, some parts of the software
are clearly free, and some other parts are a fork of
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'm not planning to develop the instructions document by
interactive trial-and-error with you on debian-legal ;-)
Fine, but at this time it's not easy to build a firefox-based browser
that Mozilla Foundation would be happy with, even with reading
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
In this software the problem is two folds, some parts of the
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:51:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
We seem to be talking past one another. Maybe it's just that I'm
implicitly assuming a separation between library source code and
program source code, and saying that the latter is only a derivative
work of the former if it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think all licenses that impose restrictions like those in the
APSL are non-free.
I think that these are all desireable restrictions in many classes of
free licenses.
OTOH, what we'd like to see or not in a license does not have an obvious
on its freeness.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
Yes, because I do not believe that it is a restriction on other
software.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
The discussion of the new Graphviz license sort of petered out, but
I think there is a widespread interest into reaching a conclusion.
Therefore, I'm trying to ferret out dissent by the ancient and
venerable tactic of asserting that a consensus exists:
*D R A F T*
Debian licence summary of
Hi,
I am the author of a free software program called GNU phpGrabComics.
It started as a very small project, and now it is growing much as user
base. My server (I am on a shared hosting) is starting to have load
problems, and I have to consider what to do.
But, first of all, is the time for
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:28:35PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
All comics are copyright of respective owners, and redistribution of
the comics is, for most comics and in most circumstances, not
permitted. phpGrabComics is intended for personal use only.
Restricting phpGrabComics to
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific.
Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
that we can't under DFSG #8? That seems very paradoxical to me.
What I
Scripsit Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:28:35PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
First off, irrespective of legality and morality, does Debian need
another comic downloader in the first place? There is already
dailystrips and stripclub in the archive.
All comics are
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
linking? It
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:30:33AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
However, I don't think that there is any need for either Debian or the
software author to fear things here. We already distibute several
peer-to-peer filesharing implementations whose major real-life use is
to distribute
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:52:45PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
As others have pointed out, Dissident vs. Desert Island are somewhat
different tests. However, I guess it really depends on what
information is required by #3, in the intent of the author.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to
believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as contaminating
things which are run within Kaffe (with the
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific.
Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
that we can't under
16 matches
Mail list logo
