2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Not all restrictions are bad and unfree (except for the morons who argue
>>> here from time to time that the GPL may not actually be DFSG-free).
>>There's no need to be rude or to insult [1] anyone just because they
>>don'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Not all restrictions are bad and unfree (except for the morons who argue
>> here from time to time that the GPL may not actually be DFSG-free).
>There's no need to be rude or to insult [1] anyone just because they
>don't share your point of view. It doesn't help to supp
Hello All:
I'm working to close correctly bug #495269. OpenSSL exception for GPL has
been overlooked until now.
I appreciate KVIrc main developer for his help and will to solve the issue,
but I'd like to make my mind clearer. Currently and as reflected on the
mentioned bug, the upstream
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] At least Launchpad is free
> vapourware, but I think that's only if/when Sourceforge and Google
> Code quit, IIRC.
Correction: apparently it will happen by 2009-07-22, according to
http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2008/07/23/mark-shuttleworth-lau
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced
> distribution of source code is "a desirable effect", but it's
> distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp?
PySoy.
We are distributed via
2008/8/28 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Miriam Ruiz writes ("Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?"):
>>> Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
>>Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, and there
>>is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:08 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous if it has
> > loopholes (like hosting on third-party cost-free VCSes, perhaps), but
> > it's not yet clear exactly what those are.
>
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I believe we'll be able to offer Debian packages via our Launchpad PPA
[...]
So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced
distribution of source code is "a desirable effect", but it's
distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:08 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous if it has
> loopholes (like hosting on third-party cost-free VCSes, perhaps), but
> it's not yet clear exactly what those are.
It's not a loophole, it's the expectation.
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz writes ("Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?"):
> > Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
>
> Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous, and there
> is an important class of sitations where that extra restriction is
> very important to stop someon
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The "problem" with the AGPLv3 is that you can argue the distribution
> requirement is onerous. It may be a bit more onerous for a dissident
Since anyone can get a free, anonymous account at any number of free VCS
so
Le jeudi 21 août 2008 à 11:16 +0200, Miriam Ruiz a écrit :
> Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a program
> (possibly modified) covered by AGPLv3 that uses some kind of network,
> and you cannot convey its source code to the remote people you're
> interacting with through that
Le jeudi 28 août 2008 à 01:22 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Because it's just not implied, unless you manage to stretch the concepts
> enough.
Maybe we need to rephrase DFSG5 as “The license must not discriminate
against any person or group of persons, except those Marco d’Itri
doesn’t care abou
13 matches
Mail list logo
