On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:53:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long
On 2004-07-10 19:35:58 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything in the DFSG that
I
could point to which would directly cover the right to make private
modifications. [...]
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
grounded in the DFSG, and see
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040710 21:55]:
A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
That's a bogus reason. A typical you must give the author 1000 $ /
month doesn't prohibit you from
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
grounded in the DFSG, and see
Raul Miller said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:23:11AM -0400,:
I agree that the unpublished issue warrants its own test. [The
unpublished test: If the license tries to restrict what a person
does with the software when it's not being distributed, it's not a
free license.]
Whew!!! An
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
That's a bogus reason. A typical you must give the author 1000 $ /
month doesn't prohibit you from paying nothing; it just
On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi $\forall$,
Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it
makes sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package
declares a dep on 1.2 or
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:19:57 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
Alex Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was able to find the english
version of the license. It's here :
http://www.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.US.pdf
For ease of quoting and commentary,
Ich bin bis 25.07.2004 abwesend. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Heinz Stahlhut
I am away from the office July 25, 2004. With kind regards Heinz Stahlhut
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040711 14:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
That's a bogus reason. A typical you must give the author 1000
Josh Triplett wrote:
I believe the issue is that unlike patents and copyrights, unenforced
trademarks become diluted and no longer enforcable.
Terminology confusion here; dilution is a separate concept from
enforcability. Look up trademark infrignment and trademark dilution.
Indeed, an
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is
non-free, you lose.
Where in official Debian documents (e.g. constitution, policy
manual, etc.) do you see such a
Josh Triplett wrote:
Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
Please note that until other debian-legal participants
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
into account a bit. I've a few comments...
Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
terms of software covered by the license, rather than the license
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations?
--
G. Branden Robinson| The
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:31:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It is not. But as far as I have gathered so far, once d-l gets into a
consensus that something is not DFSG-compliant, it gets quite difficult to
convince someone that matters (one of the ftp-masters) that you're
MJ Ray wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
I have
asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
any words from the decision-makers.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:07:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be
nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people beating
upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology.
I never meant to imply that
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
23 matches
Mail list logo
