Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
It could take the form of a warning message when you upload files...
All information submitted will be considered by clicking in ok you...
I am irritated when applications try to dictate terms to me.
Also, if we effectively give people no choice, we
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 06:23 +0100, Carlos Correia a écrit :
How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who
has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts?
What a big troll you are...
- From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to know:
I wish mailing lists had moderation like Slashdot. -1 Flamebait.
On 6/3/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The C header files containing the address assignments in the tarball
are not source code in the GPL sense, ie. 'the preferred form of the
work for
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use
On 6/4/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He
For the record, I think this is all offtopic trolling and we need to
get back to the real work of checking licenses etc.
And, AJ I don't think your replies are appropriate.
andrew
On 6/5/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note that Walter does not
On Monday 05 June 2006 11:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
-cut--
It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are
axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a
non-free condition.
***all applicable laws and regulations***
U.S. export laws aren't
On 6/5/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
U.S. export laws aren't applicable anywhere else. It says including as
part of applicable, I don't see it as non-free.
There are jurisdictions (either being exotic or not) which respect others
jurisdictions laws by means of mutual agreements
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would
apply to you in any case.
It says applicable laws, including US export
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it would
apply to you in any
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
on this mailing
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply
is none.
The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for
Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
non-free, and that is
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes US
export laws then there's nothing you
#include hallo.h
* Andrew Donnellan [Mon, Jun 05 2006, 07:13:29AM]:
No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the
problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In
the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel
list. They should just
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía:
But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
escribía:
In linux.debian.legal Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and
making completely offtopic posts.
Or maybe, but just maybe, you are in the wrong place and should spend
your time in an environment where everybody is not so much
Disclaimer: I am not a DD, nor in the n-m queue. I'm also
re-crossposting to debian-devel, because I don't think this discussion
could usefully be had on debian-legal -- and it's not a licensing issue
anyway.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I don't believe that saying someone
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers
of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive
are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of
authority is.
/20060605/decorative-clauses
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 15:39:01 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly,
'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's
hardly non-free.
Another[0] piece of hideous pseudopoetry:
Sorry.
What I
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a
disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to
hi debian-legal gurus,
the new upstream release of ktorrent added GeoIP. I would like to know if the
licensed used by GeoIP is ok, specially the database part :
There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for
the database.
SOFTWARE LICENSE (C library)
The GeoIP C Library
On Monday 05 June 2006 16:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single
statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check
that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check
official
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply
is none.
The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for
Debian to
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/4/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for
Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just
relevant, it's the entire question.
The relevant part of Sun's position is the license. That license
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 12:54 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and
again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN.
Apparently some people haven't received it, if they need to dismiss the
argument based on the fact it
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 19:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
a developer, maintainer,
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
all export and
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:33, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply
with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:27:38PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of
the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this
license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in
contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any
intention of risking the
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]:
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally
having strong opinions on licensing (*This* license is _free_, @#$^!)
are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the
nitpicking arguments about
On 6/6/06, Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi debian-legal gurus,
the new upstream release of ktorrent added GeoIP. I would like to know if the
licensed used by GeoIP is ok, specially the database part :
There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for
the database.
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject Software,
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this
license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in
contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any
intention of risking the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 19:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
Please note that Walter does not
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy
statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then
be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In
that context, it seems reasonable to point out
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers
stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The
packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group
of non-developers who care about
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
[Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]
Hello,
I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the CID Font Code Public
License, included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
was recently removed because
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
don't get to decide on the policies
All:
Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
the intent of the DLJ.
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
has been specifically
David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian,
don't get
46 matches
Mail list logo
