Walter Landry wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and Not really
non-free mails.
It is indeed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
debian-legal is just a mailing list, so it cannot have a position about
anything.
My position is that the MPL does not violate the DFSG, but it's not
obvious if Debian can satisfy the requirement of distributing
non-current
Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Whats debian-legals position about the MPL?
Looking at google I see a lot of Summary - non-free and
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
[with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
widely available,
Why does it matter whether the
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
[...]
I think
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
prohibited.
Only if
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:21:07 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you please phrase what you would consider an accurate (non
misleading) credit?
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and others
I'm really losing you here... :-(
You are basically
Useful piece of information for those concerned about using open-ended
or later licensing on their software: the upgrade clause in the
LGPL2.1, clause 3, allows the use of GPL version 2 or later:
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License instead of this
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license).
That's an open question, and necessarily jurisdiction
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
The subject of this sentence is you.
The subject of this sentence is not technical measures.
The object of use is technical measures to obstruct or control
the reading or
Hi folks,
I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
described below.
The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
forwarding it to this list because I've not (yet) received a
Ed Hill writes:
Hi folks,
I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
described below.
The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
forwarding it to this list because I've
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
maintainer to sort out license
Ed Hill writes:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
maintainer to
Ed Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm asking because the main upstream author (Michael Jennings) seems to
think that the Fedora Guidelines (which are in some ways quite similar
to the much-older DSC) are silly rules which discriminate against
packages for no real reason:
15 matches
Mail list logo
