Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal turing machines.[1] (Hint: Think bacteria
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I
Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed the
Humberto Massa said on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:25AM -0300,:
I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to
be more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the
summary with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4)
is a nice thing.
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because a single section of the DFSG fails to enclose all of
the problems of a license doesn't mean that a a license does not
violate a section of the DFSG.
But my point is that it does more than just
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
provides some, but not all, information about why we decided the
license is
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 06:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if we
cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
It is also common courtesy among lawyers
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
it describes the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
disagreement.
Hrmph. ;)
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if
we cite the
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
it describes the
[snip]
If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
disagreement.
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if we
cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
One
13 matches
Mail list logo
