On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote:
What the?
andrew
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:24:08PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND
is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team.
Agreed; this license is still not suitable for software that doesn't come
from the PHP Group.
The attachment(s) that you sent with the following mail
was deleted by VisNetic MailScan (not delivered to the recipient)
==
The Mail came from: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
The Mail recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject of the Mail
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here.
Dropping down, down, down... :-(
Revising history is never a good sign.
Agreed fully.
_1984_ by George Orwell comes to mind (where the Minitrue continuously
rewrites history).
--
Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP.
No, it isn't. The current point 6 is:
6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
This product includes PHP software, freely available from
http://www.php.net/software/.
It does not say
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License
is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This
claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter
at debian-legal.
So lets look at that license, not only for allow php group
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:20:21 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP
License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group
software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic
discussion on the matter at debian-legal.
* Nathanael Nerode:
I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limited
to,
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500
The bigger problem is that by arguing for this type of new law, we are
arguing for an expansion of existing
Hello Francesco Poli, hello list,
I should clarify things here...
You wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here.
Dropping down, down, down... :-(
Don't think of all people in the FSF. Thanks.
Revising history is
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:49:12AM -0500
How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web
application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two?
I think that's an unnatural distinction. Both web users and arcade
players are equally
Glenn Maynard wrote:
(I'm not sure, however, if resides is a legally meaningful term, when
the defendant isn't an individual.)
Good question.
In the US, if I remember correctly, clauses refering to the residence of
corporations generally are treated as referring either to the state where
their
Hey Gymnasist, be advised that if Wallace
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
won't succeed in US, I'll invite him to Germany.
http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf
--
Rules on distribution
Basics
Vertical relationships between market participants operating
Hello.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote:
So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere.
Admitting an error (or a misunderstanding, a misspeaking, or a good old
brain fart) is something people can respect;
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does
that. Maybe we have a
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:26:17PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote:
So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere.
MY blog and I can post what I want to post. I don't care about your opinion.
Very well, but respect me and I don't care what you think seem at odds. :)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
problems is arcade machines. It's clearly public performance, and players
in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
We include sources to GPL stuff on the
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at
up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily
be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
I've generally been of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was
looking at my project registration wrote to me:
I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC):
Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed
Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled
Thu
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
[...] users.
No. They provide a narrowly
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
(I'm not sure, however, if resides is a legally meaningful term, when
the defendant isn't an individual.)
Good question.
In the US, if I remember correctly, clauses refering to the
residence of corporations generally are treated
23 matches
Mail list logo
