On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> [...]
> > He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
> > trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
> > position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I exp
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:44:30AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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,
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> What I'm saying is that the DFSG can only be applied to a certain point.
> We can require that license terms applied to works are DFSG-free. We can
> require that license terms applied to those licenses-as-works are
> DFSG-free. We can require that the
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
> > 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> > of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the latest
> > release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days).
> > Older releases may be
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:08:30 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
[...]
> > Mmmmh, would I be allowed to grab the Debian p
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> > > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
> > > the requirement is in place for *modified* w
6 matches
Mail list logo
