reveals some protected
information of the client. I would think that since SPI is the client,
they can unilaterally decide to make the information public.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital
perfect sense to me.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
for the GPL. You can check
the copyright file for the httperf to see how I handled this same issue.
There are others, but that is the only one I can think of off the top of
my head.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
interface.
Thank you for reading, and forgive me for the OT.
Because it waste's space? That's what server-side filtering is for. If
you read mail in an 80 character wide terminal, then you will know that
many subject lines already get truncated.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:08:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/08/07 18:43, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:02:02PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind
solely for the purpose of self
actualization. All knowledge is shared and there is no impediment to
its exchange. Of course, as we live in the real world and are
predominantly driven by money as a society, we really can't do as they
do in ST:TNG.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http
.
Some reason why you think it is illegal and *where* you think it is
illegal would be important and probably also generate a more fruitful
discussion than a simple claim of it's illegal with nothing else.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http
under the PHP license, which is incompatible
:/
If you are the author of said application, you could release under the
MIT or BSD-type license.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to say about what Nathanael said? How does
his not being a lawyer make his statement false?
I don't think the point was that the statement is false, rather that it
is unfounded.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss
it was readable into my initial response, that
was definetly not the intention.]
OK. I'll drop it then.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in peril.
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital
can't find a precise
quotation in the Debian Policy Manual and point to it.
IIRC, the rule is that sources and binaries must be DFSG free.
Otherwise, source CDs would fall under different rules than binary CDs.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
...
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to be specifically
addressed by GPL 3.
Thank you for your answers.
PS:I know it is not polite, but can you please CC: me? I did not
subscribe the list.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital
different reason).
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
(
Please mail followups to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
)
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:13:42AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Quoting Lionel Elie Mamane
looked :)
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
pgpdkGKrMLokV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
.
-Roberto
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
Assuming
Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
-Roberto
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Arlitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Martin Arlitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: forwarded message from Roberto C. Sanchez
[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
Assuming that
* httperf is currently released under the GNU GPL v2
://felix.sourceforge.net/current/www/licence.html
[1] http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
pgpD0lXn55SIk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Quoting Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Florian Weimer wrote:
QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
You must ensure that all recipients
license, but rather an MIT/X11-like one,
which is indeed compatible with the GPL
Thanks for the clarification.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roberto C. Sanchez:
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1
://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/regexplorer/regexplorer_0.1.6-12/regexplorer.copyright
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
,
the software is not free.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. Correct? I am just trying to make sure that I understand
this, for my own edification.
-Roberto
P.S. Please CC me, as I am not subscribed to -legal.
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense)
which would make it non-free. Is this correct? Should a bug be filed
against the gnuplot* packages?
-Roberto
P.S. please CC me as I am not subscribed to -legal
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
30 matches
Mail list logo
