On 6/7/06, Jon Kåre Hellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Second question: Has a binding legal agreement been made? Indeed it has.
Ftp-masters are empowered by Debian to include packages in the archive.
They are without question agents of Debian. Debian must accept the legal
consequences of their age
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> The other plausible interpretation is that SPI *is* on the hook, as the
> legal entity that owns servers that are distributing software.
If you use your shell account at your ISP to distribute software, and
the I
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> * If a member project engages in activities that would jeopardize
>SPI's classification as a non-profit entity
Things of that kind would be using SPI property or funds for
unsuitable activities. Note
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > So what am I trying to do?
> > Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
> > serious legal risks.
> Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> So what am I trying to do?
> Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
> serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
> As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And hi to everyone from /.!
> > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
> > along
> > at home.
> If you wanted to avoid publicity, no
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
> its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps
dropping him a private mail
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And hi to everyone from /.!
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
> at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would hav
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any o
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> announcement:
>
> SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT ("
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mista
OK, I'll chime in. I just hope I'm not making matters worse.
First, obligatory disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a Debian
developer, I'm not a new maintainer applicant either. And I'm certainly
not going to make demands on anybody. I'm a resident of Norway, so that
is the legal system I am
> Well, when the DPL is ignoring the developers' opinions, why would the
s/the/some of the/ ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
> ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
> is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
> relationship between SPI's l
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
> > anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
> > another notch by making remark
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns
> regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and
> -legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's
> attorney as to th
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> > The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> > announcement:
> >
> > SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
> approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
> decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
> it is very important for thi
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > > > should be, and argu
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely,
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
> >> software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
> >
> > Nobody said
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely, then SPI could be liable.
>
> Oh, very good point. I ha
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > > should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
> > > Directors.
> > If
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
> likely, then SPI could be liable.
Oh, very good point. I hadn't thought of this.
> I can see what you're sayi
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:11:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> > STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT ("JDK" - THE "S
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
>> software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
> Nobody said that and you know it.
Uh, well, believe it or not, that really d
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
> >> into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
>> into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI to a legally
>> binding agreement?
> The first paragraph o
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> > enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> > our resources to defend) third partie
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mistaken, though.
> Could you please point out where you be
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
> > Directors.
>
> If SPI wish to withdraw from their relationship with Debian, then that'
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:47:03AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am becoming increasingly concerned at the unilateral method in which
> you and/or the archive maintainers have taken this decision.
>
> The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> should be, and arguably
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages
> to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in
> responses from Sun,
33 matches
Mail list logo
