On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:35 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
slew of words! The branden misses!
Ridicule does nothing to help your argument.
Of all the
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:59:33PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copyright file should have the license that applies to the work. Not a
read the copyright file and apply this patch statement in the README file
(or worse, in about.html on the author's website, or in an email message)
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as
I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional
riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an
expert in licenses.]
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the
words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste
license, regardless of from where those words entered the
cut-and-paste license.=20
What do you mean by
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
magical +3 sigh of hyperbole deflection
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
slew of words! The branden misses!
Maybe Henning or I should package something really trivial with a license
such as we are debating, just to
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's
construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it.
Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper
phrasing of such a construction is to rewrite the entire
Don Armstrong said:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
I would assert, though, that it is possible to phrase one's
construction such that it is not reasonable to argue about it.
Sure. I think most of us would agree that an unequivocally proper
phrasing of such a construction is to
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I
did not construct them.
Which arguments?
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:59:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying This is licensed under the
GPL with the additional restriction that is an invalid statement,
because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all.
I think that you've misparsed
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I said before: when the GNU GPL says this License and herein,
these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and
forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same
document.
Perhaps GPLv3 should solve this
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you
can't do baz? Let's see...
The result looks EXACTLY like:
Copyright 2003 Joe Blow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
1) You can do
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who
made the false claim that GPL+more
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I
did not construct them.
Which arguments?
The ones IN MY MESSAGE!
You keep saying they exist
I keep giving
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of
such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear
and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of
such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear
and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every*
set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you don't share my position, that's fine, but you haven't yet
articulated why.
I have. Multiple times. Someone using your name and imitating your
style of writing rather convincingly have replied to several of those
postings.
Digging in the
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who
made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily
internally inconsistent. I apologize for implying
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian interprets
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:58:36PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:20:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:17:40AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00294.html
While I agree with that post in general, I don't think it's germane to
the case of PHP-Nuke. The PHP-Nuke author claims that the requirement
to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of
the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The copyright holder of a work is free to license the work under the
terms of his choosing. Although the PHP-Nuke author has stated the work
is under the GPL, he imposes the additional restriction (one which we
believe is NOT
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to
satisfy.
I thought that the reason was that the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to
satisfy.
I thought that
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that
Hi Ron,
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 12:26:34PM -0400, Ron wrote:
I found the thread at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html
regarding the licensing information on PHP-Nuke. Unfortunately, I was
unable to find a conclusion/consensus on the issue. As an end
Thank you Steve. That helps greatly. I don't believe he is the sole
copyright holder, but I can not state that with 100% certainty. I will look
into using a different system.
Best regards,
Ron
30 matches
Mail list logo
