On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:45:18PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:21:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:49:07PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > The julia maintainers have proposed to libgit2 upstream to support
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:49:07PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:34:16PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:36:58PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > I am suggesting to provide two variants of libgit2, without and with
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:36:58PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Unfortunately, libgit2 also doesn't seem to support any TLS library
> > other than OpenSSL. That's a serious problem for GPLed software, a
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal team,
> >
> > The next release of julia will use libgit2 (Cc'ed recent maintainers)
> > to retrieve package
direct *or* indirect dependencies on OpenSSL. So, packages licensed
under GPLv2 with no license exceptions can link to libgit2 in Debian.
- Josh Triplett
the
contrary, or specific precedent, I suggest you assume that pyfoo does derive
from libfoo (regardless of the interface pyfoo uses to invoke libfoo).
> However, I think a nice email to the author can clear it all up anyway
> - your Python bindings would simply drive more sales of the commercial
> license anyway.
Agreed.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
on, and if that holds
true, X would need Y's permission.
For the specific cases you gave, I agree with Andrew Donnellan's assessments.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e
irrevocability of a previously-granted GPL in this scenario.
> Should I file a bug report against the bootcd package to ask for a
> clarification?
The license statement could certainly use clarification, but it doesn't
necessarily need clarification to become free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
arties the source code of the Software;
>
> No right to sell. I think this isn't good.
GPL v2:
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed a
license, you may indeed
include the software in Debian main. Debian main requires DFSG-free
licenses; it does not require English licenses. That said, you might
consider including the English version from the author's webpage in
debian/copyright in addition to the Japanese version, appropriately
identified.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ebian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you
> mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full
> control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people.
If you link to OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries, you
definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula;
Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:18:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> Note that the license says "... is distributed *with* your Operating
>>> System", and not "is part of". I don't know where you read the "part of"
>
OpenSSL would
violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't
make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute
Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Tom Marble wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Tom Marble wrote:
>>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
>>>>> + SECTION 2(c)
>>>>>
>>>>> There have been a series of speculations about this, des
akes sense to me.
>
> Or option (b), remove the Sun packages. If we were to face this
> situation, there's always this option if there isn't a better one.
And if a problem comes up with the Sun Java package shipped in stable,
or oldstable?
> Speaking realistically, such a move of Sun would be spectacularly bad PR
> for them esp. considering their statements about future Java licensing
> efforts they have committed to.
I agree. However, that doesn't prevent them from doing it, once.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ery
>>> interesting Open Source future for Java. Simon, I (and many others)
>>> are going to work very hard on that internally so that soon you will
>>> be able consider Java for "main".
>> For that, I applaud you; let me know if there is anything that I can
>> do to help speed that process (which is infinetly more interesting to
>> me than dealing with EULAs) along.
Fully seconded; I would gladly help with this as well.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
and
state their approval, and then include a full copy of their reply in
your debian/copyright file.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e might want to adapt
some part of the Wget manual for their own documentation, which might
document an LGPLed library, or a MIT-licensed work, and thus shouldn't
have to include a potentially confusing third license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
s of the work."
Notice the intentional lack of specific wording or placement required
for such a notice. I modelled this after the GPL's clause 1.
Note, though, that any such clause will likely make your documentation
GPL-incompatible, which will likely cause problems down the road given
that Bacula uses the GPL. I personally would suggest just using the GPL
on the manual, and relying on the fact that the GPL requires a
conspicuous and appropriate notice as to the GPL status of the work; and
furthermore, that any distributor would need to either include the full
source to the manual or an offer for such.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
but a carefully worded license *might* manage to require a
specific notice as to the unofficial, non-endorsed status of the manual,
while still remaining DFSG-free. You could then specifically grant
distributors the rights to call themselves an official and/or endorsed
manual in exchange for whatever auxiliary licensing terms you want.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
he Word docs?
As I understand it, "preferred form for modification" means the
preferred form by a person who made modifications (in other words,
upstream), not the preferred form of those who would like to make
modifications (in other words, downstream).
In any case, I'd so
t any permission to distribute. It also seems to
restrict which modifications you can make; among other things, you can't
modify it to serve the needs of *other* installations, or modify
anything other than declarations. It may well *intend* to grant the
right to distribute (unmodified or with
From data:
> - cube-client-nonfree
> - cube-server-nonfree
> - cube-data
Seems reasonable.
If enough Free data existed to play the game (even with a vastly reduced
dataset), you could split the data into cube-data and cube-data-nonfree
packages, and put the Free client and server in main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
>> likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
>> for our mirror
ldn't legally distribute them.
I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
far as the non-free archive.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
think we'd quibble over its non-freeness; this requirement constrains
development practices only slightly less.
I think "any mirror operator, CD distributor, system distributor, or
other distributor of Debian could face a lawsuit if Debian's systems go
down or Debian stops distributing source
According to Gervase Markham, the mozilla relicensing process has now
completed; all source files now fall under the GPL, LGPL, and MPL:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
gregate with unrelated
programs, such as the Debian distribution? The latter follows the
letter of the DFSG; the former places a stronger requirement that I
don't believe the DFSG permits.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
er GPL2 or later. Because
this appears in the license text rather than in the recommended license
notice, an individual licensing their software cannot remove the "or
later" in any way without creating an incompatibility with the LGPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
rely
>> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
>> to weigh in?
>
> [CRUFT]
Emacs actually does use this; M-x yow and M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead draw
Zippy quotes from this file. That doesn't necessarily change the
freeness status of it (though the
A GNU Manual
>
> and Back-Cover Text
>
> You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software
>
> and no invariant sections. Must I really throw this document
> out of Debian (BTS 335403)?
Yes. You could package it separately in non-free, however.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ed since then, according to emacs CVS.
In any case, more suited for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
package.
> spook.lines
> -- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
> domain
Word lists can be copyrightable if the selection of the words involved
actual creativity rather than an exhaustive list; that list certainly
seems to qualify.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
here.
(Note that my use of the phrase "non-free conditions" does not
contradict the GFDL GR, which just states that the GFDL as a whole is
defined to be DFSG-free without unmodifiable sections; the individual
clauses can and should still be considered non-free in any other
context, an
d what it
literally says is what it means. However, this doesn't mean that the GR
said the particular clauses in the GFDL are free; the GR just *defined*
the GFDL *as a whole* to be free. It would thus not contradict the GR
at all if we continued to interpret any identical clause in anoth
a copyright notice and no
license at all. The default is that any right restricted by copyright
is restricted.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
says. They're *undistributable*.
Agreed. There's absolutely nothing stopping developers from saying "OK,
fine, by the GR it's DFSG-free, whatever that means now; we still have
no legal right to distribute it unless we change our modes of
distribution to not violate the license".
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
s the "intent" of a voting body
with likely many individual intents. I don't believe it's a farce to
take the approach of interpreting the DFSG in a reasonable manner, and
require a GR if the project wants to say "Regardless of any license
reasoning or possible issues
les
in etc/ have no explicit license.
Also, etc/MOTIVATION contains:
> [reprinted with permission of the author
> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
necessarily include authorization to modify.
- Josh Triplett
e
*intent* of the Project, particularly since such intent may vary greatly
between various developers.
To use the mathematical hyperbole: just because the project has
legislated pi=3.14 doesn't mean we should start arguing e=2.72 and
sqrt(2)=1.41 for them.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
C] Includes non-free documentation
> (RFC2307)
>
> More unmodifiable material. The "do what I mean not what I say" philosophy
> promoted
> by the recent GR may mean that this should not be considered unmodifiable,
> however.
> I'm not sure.
See above, an
:1 requirement. Then only a handful of
voters would need to have voted it below Further Discussion for it to
have failed, which doesn't seem at all unlikely in the face of the above
two points.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to a lot of effort to
attempt to get it into main if most people will be using it with
proprietary software anyway.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ly consider "free enough", such as
autoconf-doc. The following (untested) snippet should work:
Package: *
Pin: release c=non-free
Pin-Priority: -1
Package: autoconf-doc
Pin: release c=non-free
Pin-Priority: 500
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
into the canonical version.
Sounds quite clearly like a request to me, not a requirement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ary, so I'm not sure when and by whom
> any problem occurs.
The problem only occurs once you *distribute* the GPLed binary linked to
the GPL-incompatible library.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
might satisfy
> a requirement that the *users* be given GPL-like access to the source.
Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at
up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily
be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
- Josh T
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
>> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
>> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
>> (&q
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
>>interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
>>software, you must still satisfy the requirements of cl
e in this thread for
specific text, as well as answers to several of the other points you
raised in this mail. I've also provided that specific text as a comment
to that clause on the GPLv3 site (though since I sent it via email, it
may take some time to appear).
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
hat those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
("Non-Source Distribution") as though you had distributed the work to
those users in the form of Object Code.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e of the original
software".
> and for
> GPLv2(2)(c) in particular.
Bad example; if that clause were in any other license, it probably would
have been declared non-free a long time ago.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
David M.Besonen wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:51:25 -0800, Josh Triplett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The GPL version 2 does not. The GPL version 3 does not directly, but it
>>permits licensors to add such a condition without being incompatible
>>with the GPL v
of software using such a clause on top
of the GPL version 3.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e
jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect
privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It
would be problematic if this clause was taken as a legal definition in
those cases as well, preventing the use of GPLed software for that
purpose. Thus, th
ion and Attribution-ShareAlike
> licenses will still be incompatible. But for upstream projects that use
> earlier versions of by or by-sa, there should be a clear upgrade path.
This seems like one case where it is rather unfortunate that CC didn't
standardize on an "or any late
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Thanks for saving lost soul.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
>>granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
>
;for any purposes is granted without fee". A quick google over the
debian-legal archives shows that this issue has been discussed and
resolved as early as 1999, and that it nevertheless comes up numerous
times after that.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
o change the license to be open; they
simply have the standard problem of being unable to get permission from
all contributors. Thus, the only way to relicense is to rewrite.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ggests.
If it has no functionality without povray, I agree that it should be in
contrib; if it can be useful without povray, the current situation is fine.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ed form for making modification to xblast graphics is the
> corresponding povray files (unless they are on their turn automatically
> generated from something else...).
One useful point here is that there exist Free renderers for POVRay
files, such as KPovModeler. I don't know to wha
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
>>all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
>>clause were abolished, as well as any well-known license
dered acceptable, we could push to have
> this replace the proposed (7d).
I believe this clause addresses the issue perfectly, and I agree with
proposing it as a replacement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ht be
affected. Offhand, the only package I know of which is currently in
main and under a patch-clause license is gnuplot, and I don't know of
any well-known DFSG-free licenses (used on more than one project) which
include a patch clause.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
cy-violating features, because it ensures that someone can get
> the source code, find the spyware feature, and publish an improved
> version of the software which does not have the feature. Users can
> then switch to that version if they don't want their personal
> information to be reported.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
tionale
document states that this should permit people to keep a separate
changelog, rather than keeping changes in individual source files.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
;, which obviously doesn't look
>>very good on the program's copyright notice.
>
> So in summary it would probably be better to leave the license untranslated,
> right?
Yes. Furthermore, given that the license notice should not be
translated, I would suggest that the use of
Marco Franzen wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Mickael Profeta wrote:
>>> If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
> ^^^
>>> licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
>>> dated June 1991 (&q
appearing in the file COPYING. If the
> file COPYING is missing, you can obtain a copy of the GPL v2 from the
> Free Software Foundation Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
> 02110-1301, USA.
This looks fine to me.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
happened though.
Rather than immediately jumping to "qt is non-distributable", perhaps
someone could just *ask* Trolltech if they could provide the tool they
use to generate the HTML from the comments. Preferably without bringing
up the legal issue, since this is also a simple technical issue.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
icense", making the net result "licensed under [GPL], or
compatible license":
>>>("GPL v2"), or compatible license, then you may use Libprelude under the
^
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
t be acceptable ?
>
>
>
> Would such a modification be enough, or should it be more deeply modified?
That would be sufficient, assuming all copyright holders of the work
agree to the change. It would also help to make it clear that the
information in LICENSE.README is phrased
to improve the program, or to provide a more
>>> detailed description of the underlying algorithms.
>>> (Which does not mean, though, that we may not do it.)
>>> 4. Whenever you use the Product, we request that you inform us by writing
>>> to the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to street address listed
>>> below.
>>
>>Non-free clause. Every time you use it, you will have to send an
>>email or a letter to them.
>
> Really? Isn't 'request' the phrase often recommended on -legal for
> such things? (though I understand that the license isn't the right
> place).
Yes. As phrased, it sounds like a non-binding request to notify them,
not a demand.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
roader than that: "or
which interoperates with any existing software used by other member(s)
of the XLink Kai: Evolution VII service" needs no stretch of
interpretation to apply to almost any modified version. As for the rest
of it, restrictions on what you can connect to a particular se
een made.
I agree with your assessment; this license appears to be DFSG-free.
> I include the text of the license below.
Full quote of license text retained for context.
- Josh Triplett
> --
>
> EPICS Open License Terms
>
> The foll
needing the libraries present in order to build pymedia, then you could
ship pymedia with those features enabled such that any user with the
appropriate packages installed would have that functionality. The same
thing is done by packages which want libdvdcss.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
t invoking GPL clause 2(b)."
>
> in the copyright file in order to be put in main debian section, right ?
Not necessary; the license you posted is compatible with the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:21:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>>> - "All rights reserved" would imply that the software is not licensed at
>>>>> all,
>>>>> which isn't true. The answers I got from #de
al terms constituting a Free license:
yes, the same way that "Copyright 2005 J. Random Hacker" means you have
no right to use the software.
> However,
> the licensing terms in the source code should take preference.
Correct. If additional clarification is desired at boot time, a
h the
developers to add and/or fix the functionality that application needs.
If that doesn't work, you could also look into Free replacements for the
software itself.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
distribution, under src/". That seems to me to be "information
> on how to obtain complete source code". So then you comply
> with the license IMO.
"The source code must either be included in the distribution or [...]"
confirms that interpretation. This is th
re, the same license
applies to the libdb4.2 package, already in main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
then you should mail the maintainer of the NetBSD port telling
them the software is available under a Free Software license (as they
currently have a note about the non-commercial-use restriction).
This is an astounding success; thank you.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
st
continue to distribute the previous source for six months. In both
cases, this seems like a rather large imposition.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
not
everyone uses "software" to mean "any set of bits", I think it is
preferable to use the potentially-redundant "software and other content"
rather than the potentially-too-narrow "software". I believe the latter
has more potential for confusion than the former.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e at all, depending on the creativity put into
the selection of which words to list. It sounds like the author is
goinng for a complete list of all words, which is most likely not
copyrightable.)
> 5. Is there a suited license for wordlists (that keeps the list
> non-proprietary)?
eded to avoid that problem.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
sponsible for ensuring that it's a benefit to
> the public, as somebody might e.g. find the word 'backup' offensive.
>
> TIA,
> David Mandelberg
>
> P.S. debian-legal: please CC me on all replies as I'm not subscribed.
I suggest using the wording suggested by Brande
ected to do so.
[1] (barring some strange regulation of Cuba; for example, some
countries restrict encryption)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> As a sidenote, I got a response back from our "chief editor" and she likes
> the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I think that the others will too.
Wonderful!
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
cance; only "Copyright" and a C in a circle
do. Use the full word "Copyright".
Also, for the URLs, <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> works for the
GPL, though in the ideal case you should include a copy of the GPL with
the work.
Other than that, it looks fine.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
o any harm?
This term came up during previous discussions of the IBM Public License,
and the clear consensus was that forcing the licensor to waive their
right to a jury trial is definitely non-free. Thanks for catching that one.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> [Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
:)
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>
>>> If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
>>> orig
lder versions. However, it
certainly can't affect software copyrighted by others; for such
software, you need to get permission from the copyright holders.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
xious that it specifies the exact mechanism by which you
must include these notices, right down to the filename, rather than just
speaking in general about "clear and conspicuous notices" or similar;
I'm not sure if that's non-free or not though.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
harder to explain (and harder to convince people that they aren't
just Debian ranting, which seems to be a far-too-common opinion :( ).
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
work to do).
Actually, a simple email from the upstream author has been considered in
the past to be sufficient authorization for a license change. If
upstream were to send an email saying something to the effect of "I
hereby relicense all versions of latex2html under the GNU GPL, ver
LaTeX source by a DFSG-free LaTeX->HTML
> compiler (TeX4ht?)
>
> [1] note that python only Suggests: python-doc, so pythin would stay in
> main
* latex2html is released under the GPL and moved to main.
The author has already said he would do this with the next version, but
th
thereof, on the recent GR
regarding non-programs and the DFSG, or on anyone who doesn't support
reading the DFSG as a checklist. Perhaps it's a milestone: we've become
a sufficiently well-established forum to have picked up regular trolls.
:) Please don't let a few people spoi
to that bug on January 26, 2005, stating that
they "felt that a statement on a website was not sufficient to supercede
the license distributed with the code itself.". (They were open to
being convinced otherwise.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
n front of them and it all makes perfect sense to them.
I don't think intentionally obfuscated code passes the source code
requirement of the DFSG any more than a compiled binary does; if it
does, we have a problem. Undocumented code, on the other hand, while
rather annoying, is not an issue of freedom.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1 - 100 of 510 matches
Mail list logo
