Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was thinking of doing an ITP of a program which is called mpich2.
But I am not sure about the license which mpich2 is under with. [0]
I'd be glad if you can help me. What do you think about the licence?
Could be this software
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:02:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the
project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian
but other people generally do. Why is this
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rather
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
:)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
(Not on the list, please CC me on replies)
hey,
ia64 cpus have dropped hardware i386 support in exchange for non-free
software emulation, known as IA-32 EL. I took a cursory look at the
license, and I'm wondering if its even viable to upload to non-free.
The text of this license is available
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:42:10PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
* Section 4: Updates requires commerically reasonable efforts to
supply our customers with updates that Intel distributes. If this
means we cannot say no to an update from Intel, that does not sound
reasonable for
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not as
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, consider DFSG §10:
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of
licenses that we consider free.
Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
(relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
we'd have
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
not ... something the social contract cares about. That's not at all
clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
promise, which has no
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:07:44PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:42:10PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
* Section 4: Updates requires commerically reasonable efforts to
supply our customers with updates that Intel distributes. If this
means we cannot say
Hello,
In the conditions paragraph below, I am wondering whether:
(1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
corresponding in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
(2) In the last sentence, does the phrase must reflect all
modifications mean that all past, present, and
17 matches
Mail list logo
