On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Rogério Brito writes:
>
> > Dear people,
> >
> > As many of you may know, the RIAA issued a resquest for GitHub to take down
> > the youtube-dl repository.
>
> IANAL so I may be confused, but AIUI that takedown is based on the
>
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
solution to the distribution of a Debian
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In
[...]
Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the
ability to
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:18:56AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
If it isn't, then the GPL
is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that
is not yours, there are two possible outcomes:
* You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending
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,
and the fact
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 Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:51:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you distribute binary images with a magazine and have something in
that magazine saying if you want the source write to address with a
photocopy
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 11:43:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:15:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:51:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you distribute binary
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple statement
of fact which just happens to be true as a byproduct of the way
we create Debian, it is not a promise.
If I
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:04:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
If there WERE anything that said that modified versions of Debian must
be avavilable for free download, it would mean that something is
seriously, horribly,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:38:32AM -0400, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
--- Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
the claim that Debian can be downloaded is a simple
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:32:43AM +0300, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
2. Being it unofficial as it's said to be, as long as it holds Debian
in the label, could you explain *WHY* the following wording from
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/
does *not* apply?
Debian GNU/Linux is distributed
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that
there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which
is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
for the effects of everything in our operating system?
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
Right, so I was mistaken
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
(so they would most likely
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
the use or distribution
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
Non-developers,
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you*
say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do
in this
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing
java!
Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on
my
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I
as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even
if I ask, but instead
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page. One can not
use simple
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It saves *so* much trouble.
But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not if you
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
It's a simple, generic stroke of rough charcoal, a standard brush
shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
new document
I don't see any
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 04:34:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing so, is enough for
me to agree with Joey's decision.
That doesn't actually seem to me to be what he's doing.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:15:36PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Ok, change committed. You are now attributed in the administrivia section.
Thanks for the great doc.
You suck. You know you just ended a potentially great and entertaining
flamewar by leaving one side without arguments? ;-)
(jk, of
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine
replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's
not complete because of a lack of development effort.
Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pine
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
--
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If you bother to read it, you'll see We
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
Wesley's software can be built using software in main. It will not be as
fast, but it will still do its job, flawlessly, without loss of
features, with the ability to modify
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:47:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users who would
not find
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
[...]
This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
have not
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
sources with a free
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:15:58PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
[MFT to d-legal, don't know what d-devel has to do with this]
Keeping track of licences for prospective new packages is of interest to all
developers.
Correct. So is keeping track of how close we are to finishing
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and
cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1].
Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they
certainly are not delegates in their
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:41:09AM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:20:47AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is
forbidden?
I'm just curious, because it is legal in Poland, but only
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:38:17AM -0400, Dan Weber wrote:
The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is
because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for
this, and other
Branden Robinson wrote:
A) Can folks in other countries help us find out if publicity rights
are recognized there?
IANAL, and the few areas about the law that I do have a more than
average knowledge about do not include this part; however, ISTR having
heard something about it not being legal
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:20:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:57:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:27:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past
experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux
Mac68K hackers.
Well, actually, they have been. It is true that Apple has long refused
to give
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:14:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the US are mostly the most restrictive (unreasonable) juridiction
on this kind of issues, so ...
That's not my experience. The U.S. is very aggressive about
copyright
notice that says something like
As a special exception, the author grants you the right to link the
Program with any software licensed under full name and perhaps URL of
the Apache License
Obviously, you can only do this legally if you are, in fact, the author
of that license.
--
Wouter
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:00:17PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Obviously, you can only do this legally if you are, in fact, the author
of that license.
Uh. the author of the Program, not the license :)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux
, the only GPL-incompatibility in this entire license is paragraph
3c.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on
viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith
with a lawyer, I
don't think it's unreasonable to do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus
points, you are welcome to
provide suggestions.
Not that I think I'm experienced enough to provide suggestions, but
can't we at least try?
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft Windows
be
interpreted literally enough to allow the upstream author to be
identified in the debian/copyright file, as required by policy.
Is that an issue? The license text needs to be part of the
debian/copyright file.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux
against xine-ui or libxine1, as appropriate.
The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything
about patents, only about licenses).
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft
Op vr 03-10-2003, om 03:31 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:54:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
(in case my English is worse than I thought: no, the fact that
'evil' and 'manojish' appear in the same... uh... tag doesn't mean I
consider Manoj evil
to
check. Hence, you're a liar.
/evil manojish paranoia mode
(in case my English is worse than I thought: no, the fact that 'evil'
and 'manojish' appear in the same... uh... tag doesn't mean I consider
Manoj evil :-)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That could of been forged.
Received: headers can be forged, too...
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or
hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
So, your definition of software is heavily
Debian-specific. Even
, the
installation itself is still software.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus
way you could of done worse would be to sign the damn
thing.
PS: Was that dadadodo?
http://www.google.com/search?q=65.26.182.85+site%3Alists.debian.org
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux
of the manual. In other words, a modified manual.
Being able to use some of the text for something of a different kind,
such as an essay about the funding of free software, is something above
and beyond the call of duty for a license.
This is our main point of disagreement, I think.
--
Wouter
, but
also content.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462
everyone thinks that way.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate
is there.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a
documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with
the GPL instead
/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01031.html
and the thread that follows it. Or, if you don't have much time, that
message and
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01680.html
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux
effect of the Invariant Sections may be that there could be another
split of the Free Software movement, as has happened with the Open
Source people before. Are you sure that is what you want?
[1] not that I believe in 'good' and 'bad' organizations, but you know
what I mean.
--
Wouter Verhelst
easier to
debate over an actual text than over a hypothetical one. YMMV.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want.
Uh. Obviously I meant there's nothing in the GPL that I would want
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie
or not_. Where's the
problem?
No grant to modification, perhaps? (although that probably wouldn't be
extremely helpful, but anyway)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing
is too
prohibitive by Debian's standards. Simple.
Your above statement falls in the FUD class.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck
Op wo 17-09-2003, om 01:06 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document
a document format makes the format non-free.
Next, I'm not aware of any patents on the PDF format. Do you have more
information on that one?
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing
Op zo 14-09-2003, om 16:07 schreef MJ Ray:
On 2003-09-14 12:08:02 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small
print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original
place, or perhaps on the back cover. I
license out there, but I'd say the
FSF is different in that they do, honestly, want to have free
documentation.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation
:-)
Rg,
Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
I just thought it was far too long. I think
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
prepare. That's quite discouraging.
It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
is crafted
not anticipate any problem, but will remove
both texts from my website should the FSF not give permission.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck
text file enumerating the differences between the FDL and the WDL, with
a bit of explanation.
Respectfully,
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:36:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is Not an Emulator.) It may be worth asking the FSF. They have an
email address for license questions, but I have forgotten what it is.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's something along those lines, for sure.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
not try to solve one of those problems
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 22:39 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer
(good for three years) to provide it at cost.
ITYM 'at a reasonable price for distributing
. That is not the recommended
way to do it, however, and the LyX file format is completely different.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my
provide access to the source.
Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer
(good for three years) to provide it at cost.
ITYM 'at a reasonable price for distributing the media' :-)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux
served by useful, working software.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:49:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Please, guys. He
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
We can't ship without RPC in glibc
Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
section 2c
for another couple of months.
I'm sure none of us wants that. If I'm wrong, and you do want that, then
stop the bickering, and start hacking that RPC code. After all, this lit
may be discussing licenses on a daily basis, that doesn't give you any
authority either.
Thanks.
--
Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun
RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the
release.
When did we
a click-through license is necessary.
[...]
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
Hi!
* Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-01 20:39]:
So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the License.
What about use? I think that's
.
It is not really the size of the data set that matters; the amount of
work required to create the dataset is.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So
the hypothetical scenario that someone _could_ put
such a statement in ls, thereby misrepresenting the original author's
opinion.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
