On 9/5/06, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Markus Laire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060830 15:01]:
This problem was mentioned in this list on _2004_ but cdrtools still
hasn't been removed from Debian (see [2]). IMHO hypocrisy is perfect
word to describe such behaviour.
This list isn't the
* Roberto Gordo Saez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060909 11:22]:
But there is something I do not understand. Why this list is not the
place to put disagreements on the way legal issues are handled?
There is nothing wrong with discussing legal issues in debian-legal, try
to get a common understanding,
Hi all,
while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/08/msg00201.html on
debian-mentors for discussion about it).
I'd
On (09/09/06 17:20), Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hi all,
while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/08/msg00201.html on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
This is bullshit, a four clauses BSD-like license is totally free and
even raised as an example
On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
This is bullshit, a four clauses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
even raised as an example of free licenses in the DFSG.
This is wrong. This http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
is not 4-clause BSD license, since the obnoxious 3rd clause is removed:
This is not relevant, since the advertising clause was removed well
after the DFSG
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
This is not relevant, since the advertising clause was removed well
after the DFSG was written.
It was removed from the Berkeley licensed works after the DFSG was
written, but FreeBSD had already removed it from all of the works
which their members had
Diverting to -legal.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yeah, that is something which is needed. We need someone to go over
larry's list, which i have copiedto the debian wiki, and find out who
the copyright holder of
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:57:31AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The arsenic case was more problematic, since the copyright seems to have
landed at broadcom too, but they don't care since they don't sell it
anymore,
Given this, we actually should have a decent chance of getting them to
10 matches
Mail list logo
