Nate Bargmann writes:
> Your question is a non sequitur. The GPL does not require derivatives
> of a work to benefit the original author in any way. It only requires
> that the terms it spells out be honored by anyone exercising the
> rights to the covered work granted by it [GPL].
True, but so
* On 2016 22 Feb 10:42 -0600, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> De: "Ric Moore"
> > and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
> > request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
> > is actually a plus for Debian.
>
> How is Debian better off fr
On 02/22/2016 11:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
De: "Ric Moore"
and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
is actually a plus for Debian.
How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting a
De: "Ric Moore"
> and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
> request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
> is actually a plus for Debian.
How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?
On 02/20/2016 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
Hello,
Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
respecting his copyright.
First, thanks
Em 22-02-2016 10:56, Jonathan Dowland escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
> debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
> speak for Debian as you are n
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> mailing list?
Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
Em 21-02-2016 23:49, John Hasler escreveu:
> I don't know what you mean by that. It's Free Software. They can do
> with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
> permission from the copyright owner. The authors released it under the
> GPL and that's that. Debian, not owning
Thiego writes:
> I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions.
I don't know what you mean by that. It's Free Software. They can do
with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
permission from the copyright owner. The authors released it under the
GPL and that's
So strongly to: new DRMs are NOT needed. Free Software is a permissive
license, the GPL is not the problem. Who is accustomed managing the
restrictions on computers & softwares that's really bad.
I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions. Free Software
is about ethics to the copyri
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote:
> I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
> Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
> install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of other
> programs that
I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of
other programs that run on Linux and Windows without provoking a hostile
response.
Hello,
Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
respecting his copyright.
I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in ne
13 matches
Mail list logo
