On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is still
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...
Your objection, in essence seems to be
We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true.
It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable,
and
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted mailed
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A
OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the bug.
I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be in
the public domain;
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:00:55PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be
in
the public domain; in which case the only controlling copyright is that
governing the
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
When conversations go nowhere, it's
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
...
... you've correctly pointed
out that at least one of the sound files in this package appears to be
copyrighted and distributed without a license, and that's a bug that should
be fixed. [...] However, even if
we find some improperly
On 8/30/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
we believe A.
Your objection, in essence seems to be
We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true.
Well... more exactly, I try to
Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the
bug. I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used
posted mailed
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
we believe A.
Your
11 matches
Mail list logo
