Cameron Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... intentionally not upholding the social contract by knowingly
distributing non-free snippets ...
Let me see if I have this straight.
Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
removable README file would be a violation of
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
all of it, even when upstream ships non-free software (including
dingleberries). I didn't agree to the SC only when
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in
every package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are,
in fact, 100% Free
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:12:02 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
all of it, even when upstream ships
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight.
Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
removable README file would be a violation of the social contract,
while that EXACT SAME PARAGRAPH in a COPYING file would
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:43:12 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I
thought that was what you were saying.
You seem to be proposing that we deliberately close our eyes to
DFSG problems we may encounter, as long as the
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
evil manojish paranoia mode
For the record, I do pledge to uphold the social contract, and my current
key does have signatures from other developers on it :-)
Unfortunately, that mail wasn't signed, so there was no way for us to
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 20:43, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
That is not my position! As I hope you would know. I would never
close my eyes to a DFSG problem. All our software must be free:
modifiable etc. That is a given.
The items under discussion are not software in the usual sense of
the
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 22:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
- the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
I wouldn't. I'm not aware of any besides in emacs. A quick grep of
/usr/share/doc (where else should
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Sections in a
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:49:43AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:12:25 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in
every package for the licensing terms
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:54:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
evil manojish paranoia mode For the record, I do pledge to uphold
the social contract, and my current key does have signatures from
other developers on it
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I maintain GNU R (www.r-project.org and www.$ISOCODE.project.org) and a
growing number of packages from its CRAN archive (cran.r-project.org, also
country-code mirrors). R is GPL'ed, and most of the CRAN packages are too.
One such CRAN
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:15:59PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
You agree that you are a customer of Commerzbank who has been issued
with a valid password or the employee of such a customer who is
authorised by such customer to use such password and to access and
make use of this product
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:15:59PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
You agree that you are a customer of Commerzbank who has been issued
with a valid password or the employee of such a customer who is
authorised by such customer to use such password
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
snip
The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
England.
This is GPL-incompatible.
In what way? Also note how they then add the per-country specifics, also
common in the industry.
All
20 matches
Mail list logo
