Sean Kellogg wrote:
Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
The problem with this line of argument is that it
In message 20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray
m...@phonecoop.coop writes
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
Actually, I
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
In message 20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray
m...@phonecoop.coop writes
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and
On Monday 04 January 2010 04:31:53 am MJ Ray wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
On Monday 04 January 2010 06:36:26 am Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
In message 20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray
m...@phonecoop.coop writes
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of
Sean Kellogg writes:
You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
are somehow great... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
need :)
The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they
care about this...]
[Yes, I agree.]
[Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
are somehow great... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
need
MJ Ray wrote:
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
it is getting us
mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
The usual argument of the DFSG revisionists is that everything is a
restriction or a discrimination, so it's not really helpful.
--
nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
As explained, the license does not really
Nicolas Alvarez writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus
Marco d'Itri wrote:
nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
As explained, the
Sean Kellogg skell...@probonogeek.org wrote:
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
and to reply to...]
The archive looks fine [1],
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:16:43 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
[While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
and to reply to...]
The
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 03:07:23PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
it is getting us away from the original thread topic.
How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
both acceptable and
On Monday 04 January 2010 11:33:15 am Walter Landry wrote:
Sean Kellogg skell...@probonogeek.org wrote:
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
are somehow great... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want,
Sean Kellogg skell...@probonogeek.org writes:
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...]
Noted... though, my mail client handles such things.
You appear to be using KMail. You should use the “reply to
Hey there,
You still have an open invite from NAZAR MOHAMMED MAFAZ to join the
Scour.com Search community!
Scour is a Social Search engine made better by a community of users just
like you.
Why use Scour?
1. Search Google, Yahoo and Bing on one page.
2. Get real-time search results from Digg
20 matches
Mail list logo
