[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> In other words, "All Rights Reserved"...  :-(

I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to
circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which would leave
me with no recourse against you unless you set out to misappropriate
or grossly misrepresent my work or to defeat its "first publication". 
That's rather different from "all rights reserved", and it's the most
open I know how to be without seriously compromising its status as an
unpublished work still in draft.

> P.S.: please do not reply to me directly, while Cc:ing the list, as I
> didn't ask you to do so... since I'm a debian-legal subscriber, I'd
> rather not receive messages twice! thanks

I went back and checked the "code of conduct" and you are of course
right that I am in error.  It's too bad that the code of conduct plus
the remailer configuration are inverted relative to the way that MUAs
work.  Adding a Followup-To: d-l is supposed to be a no-op by the code
of conduct, and would make almost all MUAs do the right thing; but the
remailer doesn't do it automatically.  And even if I check the headers
manually I'm not supposed to assume that a Reply-To: (real mail
address) was intentional.  So I'm supposed to strip the sender from
the reply list no matter what Followup-To or Reply-To says, unless
"I'm not subscribed, please copy me" is in the body of the message.  I
guess I'll do that henceforth, but it really feels broken.

- Michael

Reply to: