On 5/19/06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The software as distributed is complete, it has all the files in the
.deb packages, and the dependencies ensure that on the user's system the
software layout is like Sun requires, with the optional bits indeed
being optional.
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:09:18PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote:
All:
Let me start by repeating the message that Simon and I gave
to you at Debconf: there is every reason for us to be friends
and working with you is very important for Sun.
big snippage of much good explanation and technical
The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? A link, please.Max Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine remark,
1. PLEASE stop sending HTML.
2. GR-2004-003 changes the Debian Social Contract - it says that all
'works', not just software, must be free:
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a ***work*** is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
promise that the
On May 19, 2006, at 16:14, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
Do they necessarily or just the ones so far proposed?
I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be
free anti-DRM
1. Ok: how? I use "Yahoo! Mail". 2. Yes, DSC is changed, but DFSG are the same! :-) DFSG speak only about software and you value every work on the basis of a software definition! It's unlogical. In this point of view, DSC v1 was logical and consistent; DSC v2 is unlogical and contradictory. I
Good work Henri! ;-) I think that an anti-DRM clause (concerning granted rights) can defend the freedom. See "Free Content Definition" (Mako Hill and other people are working on it): http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Max
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low
I'm the maintainer of mod_proxy_html, an apache 2.x module. Upstream
source code is GPLv2, so I released it under GPLv2 for the debian
package. Someone pointed me that GPL is uncompatible with the apache
license, and so we cannot redistribute it as binary :(
Could anyone give me hints on what to
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Kern Sibbald wrote:
[...]
Hmmm. I don't think I have ever seen the Postfix license, but someone
else has probably picked it up, and applying it more globally is
almost surely something I have added.
In any case, I have now deleted that clause from
On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:55:56 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:56:21 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
-distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or
Tom Marble wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
+ SECTION 2(c)
There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
clarifications of FAQ #8. The term alternate technologies refers
to projects such as kaffe, gcj, classpath, harmony and the
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
(b) the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and
such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs
under the control of your Operating System and designing,
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom Marble wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
+ SECTION 2(c)
There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
clarifications of FAQ #8. The term alternate technologies refers
to projects such as kaffe, gcj,
On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Ok: how? I use Yahoo! Mail.
Found on http://expita.com/nomime.html:
If using IE (not available in Netscape and other browsers) when in
the Compose window, make sure Plain is selected rather than Color
and Graphics. These two choices are a
Tom Marble wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom Marble wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
+ SECTION 2(c)
There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
clarifications of FAQ #8. The term alternate technologies refers
to projects such as
Hello,
Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look
and it looks good to me.
Thanks,
-- John
- Forwarded message from Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen wrote:
Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look
and it looks good to me.
This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL,
or with any non-GPLed libraries,
This one time, at band camp, Josh Triplett said:
John Goerzen wrote:
Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look
and it looks good to me.
This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked with any libraries
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:18:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Note that the license says ... is distributed *with* your Operating
System, and not is part of. I don't know where you read the part of
bit? Anyway, we definitely do distribute non-free *with* our OS, it's in
Unknown,
http://au.geocities.com/nonenzymatic461651/
Keven Spence, Acct. Rep. t731303
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2006, you wrote:
As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences
actually examine this one?
Yes.
I take it you were too busy to elaborate on this when you wrote this
email.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:18:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Note that the license says ... is distributed *with* your Operating
System, and not is part of. I don't know where you read the part of
bit? Anyway, we definitely do distribute non-free *with* our OS, it's in
22 matches
Mail list logo
