debian-project
[Arriba] [Todas las Listas]

Re: OSI affiliation

To: debian-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: OSI affiliation
From: Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:33:09 -0430
Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of joseluis@xxxxxxxxx designates 10.101.93.2 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=joseluis@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: lists-debian-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:03:17 -0500
Envelope-to: listas@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1RyWUI-00076B-AE@petrol.towers.org.uk>
List-help: <mailto:debian-project-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-id: <debian-project.lists.debian.org>
List-post: <mailto:debian-project@lists.debian.org>
List-subscribe: <mailto:debian-project-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-project-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Old-return-path: <joseluis@xxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The Debian Project
References: <E1RyWUI-00076B-AE@petrol.towers.org.uk>
Reply-to: ghostbar@xxxxxxxxxx
Resent-date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-from: debian-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Resent-message-id: <WDhpIxAO-BO.A.DV.azKQPB@liszt>
Resent-sender: debian-project-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: Jose Luis Rivas <joseluis@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
En 02/17/2012 06:11 PM, *MJ Ray escribió:
> Jose Luis *Rivas <ghostbar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Justo para dar contexto a vuestro *email, podría proporcionas una lista con el
>> OSI-licencias aprobadas que llamas no-libre? (Quizás un vínculo) Que manera
>> cada uno más sabe qué licencias te son hablando sobre exactamente.
> 
> *http://Personas.*debian.*org/*mjr/Legal/*fsf-*osi-lista-*diff.*txt
> Muestra los donde el OSI y EL FSF discrepan, pero lo que el
> punto de saber que es implicado?  Básicamente, el OSI ha
> *aided proliferación.
> 
> Consideraciones

*Hi *MJ,

El punto de mi cuestión es para dar _contexto_. Cuáles de la lista son
no-libre y como la consecuencia no conseguiría software a principal *Debian
*repositories. Así que es los que en un hipotético *Debian la afiliación
a OSI necesitaría ser cambiada de modo que la afiliación consigue eficaz.
Aquello es lo que entiendo de *Josselin *email de:

"yo’*m muy preocupado para ver *Debian’*s el nombre utilizado
a *condone licencias no aceptaríamos."

Cuáles son aquellas licencias?

Consideraciones.
-- 
Jose Luis *Rivas - *GPG: 0*x7*C4DF50*D / 0*xCACAB118
El *Debian Proyecto *Developer -- *http://*ghostbar.*ath.*cx
*Barquisimeto, Venezuela

On 02/17/2012 06:11 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Just to give context to your email, could you provide a list with the
>> OSI-approved licenses that you call non-free? (Maybe a link) That way
>> every one else knows which licenses are you talking about exactly.
> 
> http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt
> shows the ones where OSI and FSF disagree, but what's the
> point of knowing which are involved?  Basically, OSI has
> aided proliferation.
> 
> Regards

Hi MJ,

The point of my question is to give _context_. Which of the list are
non-free and as a consequence wouldn't get software into main Debian's
repositories. So are the ones that in an hypothetical Debian membership
to OSI would need to be changed so that membership gets effective.
That's what I understand from Josselin's email from:

"I’m very worried to see Debian’s name used
to condone licenses we would not accept."

Which are those licenses?

Regards.
-- 
Jose Luis Rivas - GPG: 0x7C4DF50D / 0xCACAB118
The Debian Project Developer -- http://ghostbar.ath.cx
Barquisimeto, Venezuela

<<attachment: signature.asc>>

<Anterior por Tema] Tema Actual [Siguiente por Tema>