Re: Removal of Packages from Hamm (!)
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 11:59:48PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> writes:
>
> > This is de facto free software. It has been such for the past 3 or
> > 4 years... Doesn't this establish some kind of precedent?
>
> No, it does not. You tried this argument before, and it's still
> throughly bogus.
Well, this thoroughly bogus argument does seem to apply to
trademarks. Obviously they are two seperate issues, but I dont claim
to know much about legal particulars.
> This whole situation is more than a little silly as I filed a bug
> about this copyright in September or October of 97, and you closed
> it at some point. My bad for not ensuring you had a valid reason
> for closing it because you clearly don't.
Actually, you, and others, have filed bugs after reading the first
part of the license, the very clearly non-free part. I almost asked
to have it moved after reading that myself. However the second part,
by Matthew Green, seems to be open source software to me.
As far as what is 'clear', I dont think the license is "clearly"
non-free software, when taken in it's entirety. Maybe it is clear to
you.
> Looking back through my mail archive, I see a discussion with Jeremy
> Nelson which I can dig out if you don't have it. He suggested you
> mail Matthew Green to get some documentation on the transfer of
> license. Did you ever do this?
I think I sent something off, but, not getting a reply, didnt follow
up on it. Maybe it's time to try again.
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: