On 6/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. S. Note, however, that the Linux kernel is a derivative work of
works by some other authors, such as netfilter/iptables. I don't mean
to say that no one but Linus can file a claim of copyright
infringement or breach of contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the software may not
have internet access for emailing the changes. (Think perhaps a developing
nation.)
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against persons or
groups. This is an unreasonable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the tests are
commonly used.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
You do not understand correctly. This FAQ is merely the opinion of a few
debian-legal contributors, is not widely accepted and is by no
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]:
The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the
law.
Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope
you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask:
Are you sponsored by, employed by or otherwise
Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has
become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit
and not past statements made by other people.
I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer
developers or
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems like a potentially bad idea, actually. I certainly can't
cite specific laws, but I seem to recall from similar discussions that
if a patent holder can prove a patent was violated in full knowledge of
the violation, he is entitled to triple
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The choice-of-venue makes it *non-free*.
There is no consensus about this, many people have no complaints about
choice of venue.
..and there I was thinking that we needed consensus to say that
something is free, too.
I consider
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science=20
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of=
You have written self-appointed. That is incorrect. debian-legal
is not a delegated or appointed post.
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's certainly a great deal better, structurally. I guess I've nev=
er=20
really seen any ftp-master discussion on this list... but then again, I=20
don't know their names, so I wouldn't really know who was who. But at leas=
t=20
there is some
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:33:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again
until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the
work of debian-legal.
I support deleting the summaries. I think
Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
My problem is that ftpmasters are ephemeral creatures that are very hard
to come by.
I think that's a common feeling about delegates. I think it's
linked to 26 developers holding two or more organisational roles
(and two have 7 each).
[...] At
On 6/12/05, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]:
The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the
law.
Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope
you do not feel insulted. But I really
Oh, and just to remind you: I am pro-non-crack-smoking-GPL, and have
even been known to advocate that it be required as a matter of law
that software other than e-toys be offered substantially under the
GPL terms. In most circles I would be seen as a radical free software
enthusiast. I just
On Sunday 12 June 2005 12:19 am, Wei Mingzhi wrote:
A free software license should not require any
modifications to be submitted to the initial
developer. This doesn't seem to allow releasing my
modified code _myself_ without submitting it to
anyone, only the initial developer can do so.
14 matches
Mail list logo
