I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to make
their software DFSG-Free.
It's also nice to see that
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:25AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to make
On 2004-08-11 20:34:34 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:25AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary
of
threads for this week.
It is truly pathetic that such highlighting is considered
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:57:25 -0400, Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
Don't worry, it will be. :-)
--
Andrew Saunders
All,
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a GPL-compatible commons deed. While I believe that such a deed
would be in the interest of the community
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:51:08PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I'm following up on a thread that's a month or so old, now. My
apologies for the delay in closing this out.
Not at all, thank you for pursuing this.
I was unsuccessful in getting the Commons folks to work with the FSF
on a
Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, 2-clause BSD, MIT/X11.
(We have high hopes that CC-by will be amended to be so but it isn't now.)
How do you guys think about marks, and
Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and
the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using the
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 00:25 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in documentation?
mike
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:45:02PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, MIT, usual stack.
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Roll up! Roll up! Sniper rifles for
13 matches
Mail list logo
