On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
the work is distributable, or 2: distributability is not relevant
to freeness. A GR that calls a work Free
traffic. They're designed largely
for that very purpose. This is prohibited from a straightforward reading
of the license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with no license is not (generally) public domain anyway; the
presence of all right reserved doesn't change that one way or the other.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG#1. If the GR is labelling undistributable
works free, then it is in no way orthogonal to distributability.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we're going to willfully violate the license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing
is not generous, it's
false. If the only rational interpretation that can be found of the
GR is that it demands a willfully false reading of the license, so be it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they begin proliferating
it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reference implementations (which certainly are not
specifications; anyone who's implemented a file parser knows that)?
(At least this one's in the license itself, and not merely a statement
of intent from the FSF that we're supposed to assume everyone shares.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00198.html
for previous discussion (from Googling for 'all rights reserved
debian-legal'). It's not a problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license--for years!--without fixing it. The rationale
doesn't change that, or lessen the resulting damage.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--but that fact doesn't
improve the bad options any.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an unnatural
interpretation to try to give itself permissions it hasn't been granted.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at large does not comply with
them.
The GPL does not require that the information be preserved in any way.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
change.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
invariant, prohibiting converting to formats the author
doesn't like, and so on.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encrypting a document (whether via GPG or HTTPS) sure seems like a technical
measure to obstruct the reading of copies.
In the general case, this is not a technical measure
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
did that: an encrypted, locked
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:37:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL specifically says that it must clearly and legibly identify you.
Ambiguity and clarity
says the GFDL is free,
and I'd be using the GFDL with a perfectly natural interpretation. UW did
not use a natural reading of its license; it used a deliberately twisted one.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
with the ironic name of the FDL. What matters is whether
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:34:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Oh?
I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you're talking about.
I see two issues
to be there, and now Debian has to consider it free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a copyright claim, so it seems like
a misleading copyright notice.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included
so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say trust me, we
thought about this, but I have yet to hear the resulting rationale, if
there ever really was any.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Debian's. Debian feels that documentation should be
held to the same standards of freedom as programs, and the FSF does not.
Feel free to lobby to have that page changed, if you feel it necessary,
but refrain from trying to use it as a stick to beat Debian with.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
prohibition of modifying a
work as a relatively minor wart. It seems ironic to waive freedom
requirements for the FSF out of respect for its contributions to free
software.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either.
It's something
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I find it curious that this license--the old Apache one--simultaneously
requires an acknowledgement in the documentation, and prohibits mention
in advertisement. They want credit, but not too much credit?)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
(that convenience
arguments are a weak attempt to ignore non-free restrictions, which can be
applied to almost anything)?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in response to Don's forbearance.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/2006/01/msg00493.html
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
desirable because it's free. Convenience is subjective. Freedom is
absolute.
Freedom is subjective, too; there are a lot of views on it, even within the
bounds of the letter of the DFSG.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:10:14PM -0500
If you have one GPL-ish license designed for arcades, and another for toll
booths, and another for web services, then you can't use code written for
toll
might guess is that the PHP license's version may not disclaim warranty
for some people, but they're free not to do that, right? (But probably
didn't intend not to ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the problem: these licenses, targetting a specific
use, tend to make it impractical or impossible to use the code for a
very different purpose. Having several of them for different purposes
doesn't solve that problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
alternatives alongside the free ones. (You know
that, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:07:08AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases.
(Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy
be brought in the courts of the
jurisdiction in which the defendant resides.
(I'm not sure, however, if resides is a legally meaningful term, when
the defendant isn't an individual.)
[1] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and followups.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
.)
IANAL.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be threaded away with someone else's.
[1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it, OSI uses the
OSD as a literal set of rules--a definition, which is in stark contrast
to Debian's use of the DFSG as a set of guidelines.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
give
everyone else the same freedoms that you received.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reasonable (eg. free) options would I have to comply with
the license?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
code is available on our webpage too). That's for the arcade
operator (the owner of the machine). I have no idea how one might satisfy
a requirement that the *users* be given GPL-like access to the source.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
source is
somewhat amusing ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is not certain about the wording, so I come here to ask your opinion on
the subject.
I know of no common license by the abbreviation BSDDL (and neither does
Google). Please attach the license you're referring to.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
interacts with users
in every way imaginable ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to add, but if it's on another list I probably won't follow
it at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
widely before we risk writing off some large future subset of GPL
works as being non-free.
It was just re-discussed recently, around the GPLv3 draft, I believe.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be extended across the others
and not single out PHP.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
available?
GPLv2 does not. The GPLv3 draft attempts to. In my opinion, it does
not do so in a satisfactory way, causing various practical problems.
You can find discussions on the list archives, eg.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00213.html
--
Glenn Maynard
and the permissive view, this is the only way
we can all get along. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-free. That's not a very
persuasive argument. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, by the way; it's a stable,
solid, production-quality, 98%-complete replacement for CVS.)
None of which is terribly important. Unless we're compelled against our
will by sheer volume of fundamentally critical works, none of this affects
whether the restriction is non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
under immediately obtain copies. The response was brief, since it's
a whole subject unto itself that had been discussed at extreme length, but
should give you an idea of the class of problems it presents.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
. I hope the free software community at large
ultimately disagrees with you.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of exasperation now. I'd
have held to my last attempt and not replied, but my exasperation quota
filled and it had to drain somewhere. Sorry. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subversion's actual renaming clause is in copyright, not trademark.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
perfectly legitimate legal
proceedings against them. They are not free (in a free license) to use
their software as a lever to discourage my doing so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
these two
examples).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Of course, the same principle applies;
I don't think trademark prevents me from saying this is the ESRB logo
indicating 'Teen': img.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Now it's impossible to make a functional drop-in equivalent
without identifying differently. Same problem with any number of things
required under the assumption that they're not functional: you could
scan strings output for (c) Glenn Maynard if you don't like my code,
or refuse to run if the GPL
of these trademarks. People sell
Debian CDs all the time, and I don't know if that qualifies.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an unbearable mess (think 50 countries, with 50 choice
of venue clauses, one for each depending on who you want to sue).
(The next thought, of course, is replacing French with something like
the home-country-or-something of the copyright holder, but that's a whole
new ugly bag of worms.)
--
Glenn
a strawman that
doesn't change where things are today. The FSF deserves respect for their
part in getting us here, but not so much that they're exempt from critical
review.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical a level as to mention things like
filenames at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
instigating the lawsuit.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
for determining things like
confusingly similar. Trying to replicate this in a copyright license
really isn't going to work.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
restrict the use of software
choice of law is uncontroversially considered DFSG-free, as
long as that choice of law doesn't actually cause the terms of the
license to become non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:56:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make
come to either conclusion, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
permission to modify the
software. The question isn't whether the DFSG covers that (it clearly
does), but whether that condition is acceptable.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
falls under the spirit of DFSG#5/6.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. In practice, of course, they need to be scrutinized
to be sure they don't have unintended negative consequences.
It's those negative consequences that can make the license non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Software's concern.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. If you don't agree to the choice of venue,
then you don't get the license. Any condition to receiving the license is
a restriction on the permissions granted by that license, making choice of
venue very much encompassed by the DFSG and within the scope of Free
Software's concern.
--
Glenn Maynard
place an
undue burden on licensees; even if the interpretation doesn't hold up in
court, they have to travel to prove it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading claims).
Personally--speaking for my own particular case--I don't care about
flying around the world; flying from Massachusetts to California is
quite too far.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
the copyright holder.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to take it up in an a
completely different venue. I just don't know enough about venue selection
to answer this case.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said: taking (in my opinion) the worst consession the DFSG has made,
and using it as a wedge to try to get even more onerous restrictions
allowed. (That means that not only are we suffering for the consession
made, we're suffering people using it to try to push even further.)
--
Glenn Maynard
is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
agreement with the FSF.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!, that
will destroy Debian as a free system. (And cover texts would not be a
small concession at all, but a very big one.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
itself: by pretending
that the obsolete mechanism is still effective, the deterrent
becomes the threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
research into this (which I
would hope), it might be interesting to hear their rationale in more detail,
even if it's we don't know if this will work, we're just throwing darts at
the courts (which is fine with me, as long as the clause seems harmless).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
their agenda, so effectively probably really means
pretends to ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while
under the influence of the courts' private version of the language.
(Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is colored red.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPLv3 non-free, since the GFDL showed just how
much weight that holds with the FSF. I do want to know what others here
think about these things, though, and to let anyone who agrees with these
things to lend their voice to fixing them.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
