Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
author(s) place no restrictions on this script's
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have no documentation on how parallel distribution is absolutely
necessary to satisfy the DFSG, nor do we have much of a mechanism short
of a GR to determine if this is the consensus of Debian as a whole.
We have documentation, but not a clear
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In
On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
lead starts arguing CC's point in public.
What point is that?
You're simply wrong on this, and if you go
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
lead starts arguing CC's point in public.
What point is that?
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If they wanted to prevent license complication why didn't they base
CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
'Cause they're not
OK, another stab at this beast!
I've been in contact with Mark Delany, the Yahoo! engineer that wrote the
draft and administrates the DomainKeys SourceForge project. HINAL though,
AFAIK.
On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:41, Joe Smith took the opportunity to say:
On 6/17/06, Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you talking about this license?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
As far as I know, yes.
It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
relevant section from CC Scotland:
2.2 However, this
Evan Prodromou [Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:03:28AM -0400]:
Most importantly, who cares? Whether or not there's a conspiracy, the
same task is needed: to make the case to the public, on cc-licenses and
elsewhere, that rigid anti-DRM clauses inhibit freedom and and that
parallel distribution at a
On Wed, 2006-27-09 at 09:30 +1000, Nic Suzor wrote:
One thing that I am getting from Mia's argument is that CC is having
difficulty actually identifying people who would benefit from a parallel
distribution clause. She has stated that she is not aware of a
substantial segment of developers who
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:04:28PM -0700, Ryan Finnie wrote:
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any
12 matches
Mail list logo
