Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
Accepted but unpopular.
This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would
be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow
the DFSG.
I am following the DFSG and I
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing
their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as
arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian.
Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licence
Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
- he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an acknowledgement,
which indicates
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for
me to acknowledge that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so
- he must have _some_ purpose in requiring
On Sunday 30 July 2006 02:07, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said:
Hi,
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is.
This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said
Stephen Gran writes:
Maybe the problem here is that you haven't agreed to follow the DFSG?
Could you please point out where the SC or DFSG forbid any kind of
(statement of) disagreement with their policies? Such a clause is
certainly not in keeping with the rest of the DFSG or with the general
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is.
Accepted but unpopular.
Plus, it's got some other wording -- is it OK
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely
happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly
implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What the statement reduces to is:
licensee acknowledges that there are laws in some jursidictions,
and if you are in those jurisdictions and break those laws, there may
be consequences
Well,
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is.
Accepted but unpopular
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
merely its existence.
Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the
This one time, at band camp, Ken Arromdee said:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
merely its existence.
Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
law is unconstitutional
Ken Arromdee writes:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law,
merely its existence.
Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the
law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a
On 29 Jul 2006, Michael Poole wrote:
The license demands that a licensor agree that the US government might
criminally prosecute him for prohibited exports from the United States
(the license says OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA). Good luck
arguing against that broad statement; there are
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I
completely disagree with it
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I
completely disagree with it
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
# LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
Why does the license say that it requires me to agree with something
if that is not what it means?
It doesn't; you're misunderstanding their
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND
George Danchev wrote:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
--cut--
Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
# LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
# THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
# LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is.
We accept them, but grudgingly.
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT
On 7/28/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
true.
And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes,
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely
happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It
Hi,
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is. Plus, it's got some other
wording -- is it OK? Do any of you have any tips on what I might say
34 matches
Mail list logo
