From the threads
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00108.html
and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00208.html,
i think that the license for Torque and OpenPBS are not acceptable,
because there is not consensus and people complained
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal turing machines.[1] (Hint: Think bacteria
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I
Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed the
Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License) v1.0
is not a DFSG-free license.
- It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear. This is
a significant restriction on modification (DFSG
Humberto Massa said on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:25AM -0300,:
I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to
be more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the
summary with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4)
is a nice thing.
First of all, great job.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
yay. skip
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
And possibly,
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because a single section of the DFSG fails to enclose all of
the problems of a license doesn't mean that a a license does not
violate a section of the DFSG.
But my point is that it does more than just
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
provides some, but not all, information about why we decided the
license is
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First of all, great job.
Thanks!
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
And possibly, annontations? Clearly separated from the full text of
the license?
Like what? This isn't really supposed to be a full analysis, just a
summary.
11 matches
Mail list logo
