On 4 Dec 1998, Jens Ritter wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > > How does the GPL endanger the original copyright or the continued freedom
> > > of that source?
> >
> > It isn't clear to me that it does. I am still looking fo
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > How does the GPL endanger the original copyright or the continued freedom
> > of that source?
>
> It isn't clear to me that it does. I am still looking for some expert
> copyright lawyer to give me some gu
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I would like to dispute this:
Mmm, sorry, it seems that paragraph "c)" talks about the "written offer,
valid for at least three years, etc.".
This would mean that we would have to keep the source in ftp.debian.org
for three years.
Is this more feasible
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: project
>
> Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4"):
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > i. When distribution is made by public anonymous download, the
> > > licence restriction is satisfied if the source code is made a
On 3 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
> > With a proper license forking is no problem, and the freedom that is
> > maintained is the users freedom to choose the original work over the
> > forked version. Properly used "immutable source" provides additional
> > freedoms not
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it a problem in the case of KDE source?
...
> The conflict between KDE's and Qt's license only affects the
> /distribution/ of /binaries/. I can't see what would be wrong in
> making it easier for our users to build KDE binaries themselves.
Yo
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:24:06 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm surprised by this paragraph -- either it's very obviously wrong or
> I'm completely missing your point. I'll try responding based on what
> I understand you to be saying:
>
> Of course we're encouraging people to use the stuff we pu
Dale Scheetz writes:
> With a proper license forking is no problem, and the freedom that is
> maintained is the users freedom to choose the original work over the
> forked version. Properly used "immutable source" provides additional
> freedoms not provided in other licenses.
I think that doubling
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are
> working to make this discussion moot, but...)
In principle, yes. However,
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying something like "Putting
> KDE sources on a Debian FTP
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 08:15:11 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There's a reason for us not to distribute debian sources: contributory
> infringement.
(We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are
working to make this discussion moot, but...)
If I understand you correctly, y
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 07:04:48 -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > Would it have been okay for Debian to make kde-source packages without
> > fear of being sued by the debian-fear-inspiring kde or qt
> > folks?
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, yes. See
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 07:04:48 -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> Would it have been okay for Debian to make kde-source packages without
> fear of being sued by the debian-fear-inspiring kde or qt
> folks?
To the best of my knowledge, yes. See
http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 for why KDE is
Montreal Thu Dec 3 06:59:44 1998
Would it have been okay for Debian to make kde-source packages without
fear of being sued by the debian-fear-inspiring kde or qt
folks? Seeing that KDE source is not derived from Qt...
-N.
13 matches
Mail list logo
