On 27 May 2005 09:31:37 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place?
> > Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional
> > delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? Seriously,
> if you can find references that provide constitutional delegation of
> these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all.
I agree with the first three lines: de
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please try and avoid non-costructive criticism.
> It's true that debian-legal often experiences what can be seen as
> "noise" or "interesting discussions", depending on your point of view,
> mood, and temperature... but calling it "masturbation" is a bit
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:53:29 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and
> > discussion and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to
> > read debian-legal.
>
> People are heavily discourag
On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:48:49 -0500 Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> > DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
> > the not-on-legal par
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I talked with Branden yesterday and he explained this rather clearly.
> The requirement in the QPL is no different than the requirement in the
> GPL that source either accompany the binary, or that a "written offer
> be extended, good for 3 years, blah, blah, only charge
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:53:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
> > and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
> > debian-legal.
>
> People are heavily dis
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 of the
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree with that. Debian is an online organisation and discussion
> and decision need to happen online. Noone is prevented to read
> debian-legal.
People are heavily discouraged from reading debian-legal because it's
full of huge amounts of masturb
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
> not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues.
I disagree with
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
> >is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
> >summer, IIRC).
> This is just bullshit. A few people thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
>is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
>summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
it non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UN
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How will this be summarised, will it tell us anything about the
> not-at-Helsinki-for-summer-vac part of the project and which is
> larger?
Regardless of anything else, a full recording of it should be available
afterwards.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECT
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
>> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
>> the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
>>
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what
> the not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of
> issues.
Have you had a chance to outline this
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > I think a bug should be filed immediately...
> Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the
> DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
> not-on-leg
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
> is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
> summer, IIRC).
There's disagreement over that.
> Based on what has been stated and on
> http://packages.de
On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:58:41 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged.
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
Based on what has bee
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)
* 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 (GPL w/ exception
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 (GPL w/ exception)
* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
* libstd
21 matches
Mail list logo
