On 25-Jan-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On a separate note, since this started the discussion about this point,
> (I must sound like an advocatus diaboli ;-): What happened if the Zope
> people would replace their "attribution button" with a copyright notice,
> and modified Zope so that this notice
On 25-Jan-99 Raul Miller wrote:
> This seems to conflict, in scope, with 1.1 -- I'll pose a couple other
> examples where I'm not sure about 1.1 once I get there.
No. This document is meant to cover software... not itself. Some of your
other comments seem to try to make the same application.
>
On 25-Jan-99 Joseph Carter wrote:
> Please include URLs, there are SO MANY different proposals we really
> should give people pointers to exactly which they're voting on.
>
No proposals have been made, yet. Just drafts offered for posting. So far, it
looks like only several different versions o
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:48:36AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3.1. Notices of Authorship
> > ---
> > The license may require the copyright, license, and any associated
> > disclaimers be prominently displayed in the mo
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This document is free software; you may redistribute it verbatim in
> any format. You may modify this document and redistribute it in any
> form so long as you change the title of this document. You may use
> parts of this document for
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:32:30AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > No, the first refers to using the author's name (such as Buddha Buck or
> > Darren
> > Benham). The second refers to the name of the software it's self (grep or
> > sendmail).
>
> I should have seen that... What confused me about 3.
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:16:13AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > 2.1. Use
> > -
> >
> > Anyone must be able to use the software in any way without paying a
> > fee or royalty or performing special actions.
>
> "performing special actions" seems a bit vague. How about "... a fe
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:24:13AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
> > be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
> > revision proposals "out there", even though this o
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
> > I have two comments...
> >
> >> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> >> --
> > ...
> >> 3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
> >> ---
> >
> > Are these two claus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
> IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
> be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
> revision proposals "out there", even though this one is the only one
> being currently
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 David Welton wrote:
> Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
> vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
> we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
Ummm... I suppose you could if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 25-Jan-99 Buddha Buck wrote:
> I have two comments...
>
>> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
>> --
> ...
>> 3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
>> ---
>
> Are these two clauses redundant? And should
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:08:14PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> 3.3. License of Derived Works
> --
> The license can require modified and derived software be distributed
> under the same license or the general requirement "any compatible
> license."
>
On Jan 25, David Welton wrote:
> Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
> vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
> we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
I think you (or we) can discuss the merits of the proposal now (that
seems
I have two comments...
> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> --
>
> The license may restrict the use of names and trademarks of the
> copyright holders in association with modifications of the original
> software.
>
>
>
>the copy
Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will
vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before
we discuss why we think it should be voted down?
(no offense for all the work being put into it, but I like the
original, thankyou very much)
Thanks,
--
David
A few minor nits (many stylistic):
On Jan 24, Darren Benham wrote:
> This document, in it's source form, exists in DebianDoc
should be its (the possessive of it) not it's (short for "it is")
> 2.1. Use
> -
>
> Anyone must be able to use the softw
17 matches
Mail list logo
