On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
This is a standard "No warranty" clause wrt nuclear facilities in the US.
It is not a r
Le Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Raphael Geissert a écrit :
> Hi everyone,
>
> mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
> debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
>
> On Saturday 15 September 2012 03:15:10 mejiko wrote:
> [...]
> > ca-certificates pa
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> Chris wrote:
> >
> >I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
>
> Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test".
Hi Steve,
I think that the "dissident test" and others are indi
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:39:23PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
> I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
> >* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> >* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> >* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
> Steve Langasek wrot
Francesco Poli wrote:
>
>Please let's try and avoid running in circles...
*rotfl*
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."
Eric Smith writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > But it's also plausible that the author of that statement is
> > referring to a license *from government* specific to design,
> > construction, operation or maintenance of nuclear facilities, and
> > nothing to do with copyright: the government does not
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:25:21 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
[...]
> Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test".
This has been asked a number of times on debian-legal and has already
been answered:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00215.html
https://lists.debi
Chris wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>>
>>> INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline.
>>
>> I'll call me wrong:
>>
>> 09:31 < Ganneff> svuorela: name the/a organisation, not y
* Raphael Geissert:
> TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to
> distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca-
> certificates, Fedora says it is non-free.
>
> What do the others think about it?
If we take CA certificate license sta
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:35:09 -0500 Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hello Raphael,
>
> mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
> debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
Thanks for asking.
Please note that you may receive multiple and possibly diff
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Eric Smith [120915 20:38]:
>> I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
>> >* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
>> >* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
>> >* maintenance of any nucle
* Eric Smith [120915 20:38]:
> I quoted from the Sun license on Java3D:
> >* You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
> >* intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
> >* maintenance of any nuclear facility.
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >This is a standard "No w
12 matches
Mail list logo
