Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter implies that all packages should have RC bugs on them because we
should not believe that any of the licenses and copyrights are what upstream
says they are. How is that reasonable?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is still
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
the FSF
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
Markus Laire writes:
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because it does not follow my definition of freedom.
I would like to urge to change the Social Contract to be clarified
this in
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
I have somewhat similar feelings after I found out that the
cdrtools-package[1] included in Debian isn't DFSG-free, but is still
included in main.
(Even worse, its license might even be illegal because it's GPLv2 +
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this instead of relying
on mailing lists posts.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
broadcom with this analysis,
Markus Laire writes:
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end, those same maintainers
have given up on that as a lost cause and instead have started work on
a free cdrtools fork that will ship in etch instead of cdrtools.
Do you have any link/source to support the claim
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said:
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
I used to believe that Debian only included legal, DFSG-free software
in main, but cdrtools fiasco seems to prove that I was wrong.
Ever since the issue in cdrtools was
On 8/31/06, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Markus Laire said:
So they've been doing this for 2 years, and have included
non-DFSG-free cdrtools in main while doing so? They even shipped Sarge
with this known non-DFSG-free package in main?
IMHO cdrtools
On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...
Your objection, in essence seems to be
We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true.
It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable,
and
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted mailed
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A
16 matches
Mail list logo
