Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer):
But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the
archive.
It would
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ben Finney writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts):
For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
the Debian packaging files as
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts):
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ben Finney writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts):
For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
packaging copyright holders
Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
This conversation is going in circles.
Thanks,
Paul
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote:
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
limitation?
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when
it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that?
cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently
against Debian distributing it, and also
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from
distributing isos compiled from the source.
So far I know Centos and
Ben Finney writes (Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts):
For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.
I disagree both with
Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
This conversation is going in circles.
I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail.
1:
I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his
program into this discussion. In his
All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss
this, please bring this to -project.
Thanks.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote:
Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
This
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote:
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat
11 matches
Mail list logo