On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:45:22PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > : Authors of free software on the other hand are generally looking
> > : for some combination of the following:
> > :
> > : - Not allowing use of their code in commercial software. Since
I just caught up on the discussion regarding the license. Here is my
take so far and remaining questions. So we can come to a conclusion
on this, could we people state which sections they agree are ok
so we can ignore them and start a seperate thread for each section
that needs to be discussed furt
I just caught up on the discussion regarding the license. Here is my
take so far and remaining questions. So we can come to a conclusion
on this, could we people state which sections they agree are ok
so we can ignore them and start a seperate thread for each section
that needs to be discussed fur
Due the complicated nature of part of the GLU library in mesa,
the authors are considering switching to using the version
distributed by SGI. The question has arisen as to whether
the SGI Free SW license B is compatable with the DFSG.
As I would like to see all of mesa stay in main, we
would appre
Due the complicated nature of part of the GLU library in mesa,
the authors are considering switching to using the version
distributed by SGI. The question has arisen as to whether
the SGI Free SW license B is compatable with the DFSG.
As I would like to see all of mesa stay in main, we
would appr
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> James A. Treacy wrote:
> > I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come
> > to
> > a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
>
> Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn abo
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:17:24AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Arrrgh!
>
> I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
> change it to something free.
>
> I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
> out under this license. If something
The legal team may want to think about the following.
- Forwarded message from Florian Kunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 15:07:25 +
From: Florian Kunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LOGO
Hi webmaster !
you are proba
While this is an important discussion, I do not believe that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
needs to be included. Since debian-legal is already included, the proper Debian
forum is already involved. Just drop webmaster from any replies.
--
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:40:09PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The problem is that we do not want people putting things in our mouths so
> > that
> > it looks as if we are saying them. Thus, add the following:
> >
> > You may change this document, as long as the nature
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 08:52:51AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>
> WA> `official license'
> WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made
> WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official
> WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use
>
> WA> II.
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
> > automatically roll it over again?
>
> Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we
> don't
12 matches
Mail list logo
