On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > > apparent ill effect on
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star
> > is
> > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.
> While it is obviously true that the
On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > apparent ill effect on users.
> Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
> > want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
> > cases' to enter the scene... all o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> [...] Even if in the last two years it has become
> popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
> project was not looking [...]
Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its
public mailing list and has devised a plot
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> here they are:
So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a
discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
> (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
> enter the scene... all over the world.
Not "now". Debian (and I think every other dis
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
>> can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be
>> sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
>
> There are the DFSG f
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
> >> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the use
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> > Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> > shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
>> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
>> what the license imposes on or requires from users.
>
> What's the point in us worrying a
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>
>> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
>> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
>> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
>> insuran
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
>> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
>> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
>> isn't very realistic.
>
> No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
> reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* o
Matthew Garrett writes:
> A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
> evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
> suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
> greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
> > That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
> > exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
> > thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
> > we consider at all
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>>> unlikely to deter
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> >> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
> >> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
> >
> > This seems remarkably s
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>> fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
>
> This seems remarkably similar to the argument "The user has carte
> blanche to exercise DFSG
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>> unlikely to deter them.
>
> The point is that the cost *for me* of d
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>>
>> You seem to assert that licenses cannot
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing
>> against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ?
> The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
> fact that the licensor
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>>> fivolous lawsuits.
>> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of la
Matthew Garrett writes:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>>> that choice of ve
> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
>> impression that it was generally accepted.
>
> I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>> fivolous lawsuits.
>
> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
> jurisdiction, no harassment results.
Eh?
On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described as a
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The o
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
> if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
> or something such ?
Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum.
--
Henning Mak
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>> You seem to assert th
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>
> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
> licens
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>> that choice of venue makes is that it potentiall
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> >> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to disc
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> > some restrictions present in the CDDL.
>
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
> license is free, the
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew> The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
Matthew> regardless of license conditions.
Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that
*geography*
necessarily discriminate
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> > some restrictions present in the CDDL.
>
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
> license is f
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitra
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
>> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".
> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an abili
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
>> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
>> them?
>
> Debian has always been full of soft
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft bec
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described a
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate agains
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discriminated against. If ev
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> > > at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to dis
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that
Henning Makholm writes:
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated
> against.
Why do you think that a copyright ow
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
> Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a juri
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm writes:
>>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>>> can be m
Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discrimina
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
>> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
>
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > > it's up to you explaining why.
> > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. Ho
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I am re
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a f
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> >
> > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
> | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
> | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such
> | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Se
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> > Could you explain why D
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > > cannot make a license non-free.
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
It does not work this way. If you beli
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>
>The application of the
> United Nations Convention on Contracts for the In
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
> > should
> > not distribute software with such licence.
> There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> clauses either, but th
On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > cannot make a license non-free.
> Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
> > a
> > single person here on debian-legal.
> Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is
On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
> single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > --cut--
> > >
> > > > Yeah, well, i d
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> >
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > file, so i am n
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > file,
> > > s
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debia
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Lionel>
Lionel> >>> The application of the
Lionel> >>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Lionel> >>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
Lionel>
Lionel> Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> The application of the
>>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
>>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
>> That's my favourite bit of la
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Dalibor> > The application of the
Dalibor> >United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Dalibor> >of Goods is expressly excluded.
Dalibor>
Dalibor> [snip]
Dalibor>
Dalibor> That's my favourite bit of lawy
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Conve
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debia
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> >packages which comes with this clause :
> >
> >9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The application of the
> >United Nations Conv
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
> Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
>
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> >.copyright
> >
> > T
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
>
> > Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> > packages which comes with this clause :
>
> Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
/usr/
Sven Luther schrieb:
> Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
> So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
> it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master respons
82 matches
Mail list logo
