Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in
some cases already.
Let me make this simple. I retract this general statement.
What I had
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Chris wrote:
I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 15:25]:
Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in
some cases already.
How can it be proven to be wrong? If some license makes it impossible
for some people in a
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Chris wrote:
I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:32:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 15:25]:
Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in
some cases already.
How can it be proven to
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:10]:
Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003
using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced
packages.
You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the
DFSG. The tests
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
...
Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in
some cases already.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:10]:
Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003
using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced
packages.
You do not need the
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:43]:
I see your position.
But this dissident test has been streched to the extreme and shot down
many licenses as DFSG violation.
I think it would help if you actually use that test and argue about that
case. I.e. what effect does some requirement have
Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG
point 5.
More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who
wish to not use their real name, for privacy or
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:29:11 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate
lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate
a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools
available in his
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
But this dissident test has been streched to the extreme and shot down
many licenses as DFSG violation.
snip
* requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable
(GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:04:22 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
I think that the dissident test and others are indirectly mentionned to
everyone who wants to join Debian:
13 matches
Mail list logo
