On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:52:11PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> However, if you're worried you could patch in an extra bit of commentary
> in the header files. There's no need to repack the original tarball for
> this, and you mustn't remove the MIT licence notices (doing so would
> likely itself
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:30:38PM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> >> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstrea
Sorry Gary,
i just make a mistake - you can't relicense MIT(X11) stuff - it would
work only with some BSD files. You could modify the license (just as in
ncurses) and be done with - i would like to recommend not to do so.
Cheers
Alf
❦ 24 septembre 2019 10:41 +02, Gard Spreemann :
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> code has GPL dependencies and t
Plain no. If they are really interested they would know that they can
use every MIT part under GPL because of license compatibilty. Things
change dramatically if you would consider to change the licenses of the
files - if one would contribute to your now forked files the original
project would have
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
>> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many pa
Filippo Rusconi writes:
> Greetings,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>>including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
>>switched to an MIT license, but w
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> code has GPL depe
Greetings,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Hello,
A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
cod
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:14:12 -0300, "Anderson Ribeiro [ MAD ]"
wrote:
>Good evening to all.
>Guys, I'm studying packaging.
>Because I am learning.
>
>I am trying to package it (Pulseaudio-version-12.99.2).
Aside from your original question, I would like to point you towards
the debian-mentors mai
Em sáb, 2019-08-17 às 07:24 +0200, Geert Stappers escreveu:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:14:12AM -0300, Anderson Ribeiro [ MAD ]
> wrote:
> > Good evening to all.
> > Guys, I'm studying packaging.
> > Because I am learning.
> >
> > I am trying to package it (Pulseaudio-version-12.99.2).
> > In the
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:14:12AM -0300, Anderson Ribeiro [ MAD ] wrote:
> Good evening to all.
> Guys, I'm studying packaging.
> Because I am learning.
>
> I am trying to package it (Pulseaudio-version-12.99.2).
> In the COPYRIGTH
> version is as follows.
>
> Copyrigth 2018-2019 Pali Rohár
>
>
On 08/30/2016 12:09 PM, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
> I don't know is it a time for GPLv4 which will explain to all
> corporations that THIS LICENSE mean you must participate with community
> and also make people aware that it is not only license but movement
> towards better humanity that cooperates all
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:25:49PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:29:56AM +0200, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
... and we're discussing all this on debian-devel because ... ?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . z...@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o
Computer Science Professor
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:29:56AM +0200, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
> You're just fueling myths you stand behind for some reason. You take
> data from one year (did you even verify it on your own?) and you don't
> look at historical development of situation.
The data was compiled primarily by Jon Corb
On 09/05/2016 11:10 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0200, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
>> For years and years companies are using community hard work and creating
>> their "great" products without turning back
>>
>> People all over the world created Free software for d
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:35PM +0200, Zlatan Todorić wrote:
> For years and years companies are using community hard work and creating
> their "great" products without turning back
>
> People all over the world created Free software for decades and just
> small number of those people got em
On 08/30/2016 09:43 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.jonobacon.org/2016/08/29/linux-linus-bradley-open-source-protection/
> just popped up in my rss feed and I thought I'd share it with you… it's
> a comment on the recent GPL enforcement debate on the (upstream) kernel
> list.
>
>
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:56:39 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Bradley Kuhn says that for GPLv2-only works Debian should not consider
> OpenSSL to be a system library but for works where the GPLv3 can
> apply, SSL/TLS is likely a "Standard Interface" and thus subject to
> the "System Library" excepti
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the
> years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library
> exception.
We discussed this on #faif[1] and:
Richard Fontana says the OpenSSL-system library ex
On 23 Oct 2014 02:03, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote:
...
>
> > Where it is clear it is indeed a concern. Note that Fontana is both a
> > lawyer, and co-author of the GPLv3.
>
> And a RedHat employee.
Was :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:11:41AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the
> years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library
> exception.
But legal advice is not necessarily portable. As a project, we can
certainly d
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
> libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that
> same operating system.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html
> https://people.gnome.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 23 October 2014 04:03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's usually more immediately useful to just
> upload the package with an explanation of the issues in
> debian/copyright
> and see what the ftp-master team says.
>
On 23 October 2014 04:03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's usually more immediately useful to just
> upload the package with an explanation of the issues in debian/copyright
> and see what the ftp-master team says.
>
This is probably getting off-track, however I have a package that has been
stuck in N
Excerpts from Michael Fladischer's message of 2014-10-21 08:58:32 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer for src:librabbitmq and the binary package
> librabbitmq1 is linked against libssl1.0.0 (OpenSSL).
>
> Now I was approached by Julien Kerihuel from the OpenChange project, who
> release their sof
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> Nevertheless, it is the forum where we-as-a-distribution are supposed to
> arrive at a rough consensus on what's OK, legally, and what is not, thus
> the discussion belongs there.
It's never been used that way for as long as I've been a project member.
Instead, it's a
On Oct 22, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > No, debian-legal is no body within Debian, just a random armchair
> > lawyer discussion list. But it may be Cc’d, sure.
> Nevertheless, it is the forum where we-as-a-distribution are supposed to
> arrive at a rough consensus on what's OK, legally, and what i
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
> Also, it’s normal that someone has a rosy sight on something they wrote.
>
> Note that the intent of the actual copyright owners counts
> *much* more than the intent of the licence writers when
> interpreting clauses.
>
Sure, but in many cases there is not much expression
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
> libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that
> same operating system.
Wrong: “*as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij dixit:
> >Samba is unlikely to add such an exception.
>
> So just make OpenSSL a system library finally.
It has always been a system library in Debian.
The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
librari
* Michael Fladischer:
> Considering this, is it a good idea to provide a librabbitmq1-nossl
> binary package that was built without OpenSSL while still having
> librabbitmq1 with OpenSSL-support?
We do not do this for Python, which links against OpenSSL, and which
is used from software under the
Jelmer Vernooij dixit:
>Samba is unlikely to add such an exception.
So just make OpenSSL a system library finally.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
-- Thomas E. Dickey on the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:41:27PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Why just not add a license exception as many other GPL projects do?
> Something like (copied from our Knot DNS d/copyright):
>
> In addition, as a special exception, the author of this program gives
> permission to link the code of
Why just not add a license exception as many other GPL projects do?
Something like (copied from our Knot DNS d/copyright):
In addition, as a special exception, the author of this program gives
permission to link the code of its release with the OpenSSL project's
"OpenSSL" library (or with modi
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:53AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > At any rate, here are some facts:
> > - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> > installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to
On 02/02/10 at 01:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> At any rate, here are some facts:
> - A package that builds differently because something is (or is not)
> installed on the build system is buggy. Period. It has nothing to do
> with the build system, it's the package.
... but I question tha
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > > some disadvantages (in some
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
> >> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
> >> me
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
>>> (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
> Oh I
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does not mean that we shouldn't fix such bugs if they arise
> > (obviously we should) but having priority on it is a different thing.
>
> Then I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me?
Oh I don't. However in one of your fi
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uh, since as long as I've been part of the project. I think this is at
>> least the third time that I recall the same topic coming up on -devel.
> Wow. How often a topic comes up on -devel is an indica
* Lucas Nussbaum [100120 01:26]:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> (1) We decide that we want to provide the guarantee that packages
> build the correct way in unclean envs. That mean making such bugs RC,
> basically, and making efforts to find such bugs.
If you s/unclean/non-minim
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:37:48PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I'm not asking anyone to spend time on this task, but I still consider
> > missing build-conflicts a bug. Ignoring these bugs by insisting on clean
> > chroot environments for all official package builds is no solution - what if
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:13:46PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What's the problem with documentation such as
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto (except it's an Ubuntu
> documentation)? I think that the process of building with pbuilder is
> reasonably well documented.
Let's be realistic. W
On 20/01/10 at 09:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> > suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> > asking quite a lot.
>
>
On 20/01/10 at 00:48 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> > some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> > requires changes to the pa
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 04:04:07PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching and
> > rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested in
> > that (me included) but I don't see that a broader audience wants to
> > support that.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Would it be time to start looking at LVM snapshops + sbuild perhaps?
>
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if w
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:36:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:33PM +1300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why spend a lot of time on tasks that provide little benefit, and also
> some disadvantages (in some cases, the fixes might be non-obvious, and
> requires changes to the packaging that tend to obscure it, for example
> by using --di
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software to
> suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment is
> asking quite a lot.
AOL. Yesterday night I drafted a reply (which has lingered in my
On 20/01/10 at 01:49 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There are two ways to attack that problem:
>
> how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
> with severity important?
There are a lot of more useful QA tas
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are two ways to attack that problem:
how about the compromise and doing both, except that for (1) we file the bugs
with severity important?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message par
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in
dirty environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely
certain it will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing
the
On 19/01/10 at 16:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> People do occasionally test whether packages rebuild properly in dirty
> >> environments and file bugs when they don't. Being absolutely certain it
> >> will always work is, of course, hard, but I think fixing the bug when we
> >> detect it is t
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Because we want our users to be able to patch and rebuild our software
>> to suit their needs. Asking them to set up a chroot build environment
>> is asking quite a lot.
> hu? since when do we have a b
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:48:15 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> hu? since when do we have a broader interest in people patching
> and rebuilding packages? I know that there are *some* people interested
> in that (me included) but I don't see that a broader
> audience wants to support that.
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:40:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Why would we want that?
>
> > I mean, it's very difficult to guarantee that packages build correctly
> > in dirty envs. I don't really see the point of enforcing that when we
> > have the technology (pbuilder, sbuild + lvm snap
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Well, I would argue that proper package builds in dirty environments is
>> something we want in Debian anyway, and while this isn't the ideal
>> method to find it, it would be a bug regardless of how the buildds
>> worked
Hi,
On Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> we already have two or three buildds doing that... The buildd team (esp.
> HE) working on that and if it works out to be stable enough, we can see
> if we can roll out it to all buildds.
very cool. thank you!
cheers,
Holger
On 19/01/10 at 14:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> >> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> >>
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
>> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
>> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages wi
Hi Neil,
On Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 22:29:25 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> > package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> > software
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is a bug in the netatalk Debian packaging. You cannot assume the
> package will be built in a clean chroot; among other things, the buildd
> software explicitly does not guarantee that all packages will be removed.
>
Would it b
Fabian Greffrath writes:
> it seems that some buildds occasionally have libssl-dev installed in
> their chroot. A friend of mine has found out that the netatalk package
> depends on libssl0.9.8 [sparc] in sid and [hppa, mipsel] in squeeze.
> Other architectures are not affected. For GPL-licensed
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
> "-static" or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
> resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
> violation that way then you shoul
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is true that gnutls uses libgcrypt, but libgcrypt doesn't provide
>> anything like the same symbols as libcrypto.
>
> What functionality are you after? libgcrypto provides most of the
> ciphers of libcrypto (the big players at least) as well as hash e
On (08/06/06 16:47), Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Is there a GPL-compatible libcrypto replacement? The only libcrypto I
> know of is the one bundled with openssl, which AFAICT is under the
> same license as openssl itself, which is GPL-incompatible.
Correct.
> We have gnutls as a replacement
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be statically linked?
No. Take a look at the symbols in libcrypto, and notice that they are
not in any of those libraries.
It is the case that libssl requires libcrypto, and that
libgnutls-openssl does not need anything like that.
But libcrypt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Is there a GPL-compatible libcrypto replacement? The only libcrypto I
> know of is the one bundled with openssl, which AFAICT is under the
> same license as openssl itself, which is GPL-incompatible.
>
> We have gnutls as
I do apologise. These should plainly have been on -legal.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> deciding that they're not free any more woul
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
>> insufficiently complicated.
>
> And you are willing to contain an entire copy of the codebase from
> which you are extracting. [Unless the pat
sean finney wrote:
> in the long run, i think it would be preferable to have this package
> have support for gnutls as an alternative to openssl. however, i don't
> even know where to start on this. does anyone here have some notes
> or links handy where i could start for porting the few ssl-usi
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:56:15AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 10/18/05, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [1] please don't file an rc bug against my package for my having mentioned
>>this... i've recently adopted it and would like to see the 30 some odd
>>bugfixes make it
On 10/18/05, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1] please don't file an rc bug against my package for my having mentioned
>this... i've recently adopted it and would like to see the 30 some odd
>bugfixes make it into testing.
Isn't it possible to tell the BTS the RC bug also applies
Re: Joe Smith in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Have we updated the GPL in debian with the FSF new address?
Yes.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
> > Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm disputing an argument which seems to require a number of such fine points.
> It is difficult for me to raise such disputes without mentioning the the
> points
> themselves.
>
> Howeve
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
> No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
> terms of the law that is actually applicable, not a
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the court were
obliged to construe the GPL so that every wor
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
> as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
> it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
> FooSoft for linking agains
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe
where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666]
I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to
explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at
On 5/11/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL did not use the word "equals".
> > Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals".
>
> Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
> distinctions as claiming that "that is to say" does not conn
[Raul Miller]
> However, I can present my point of view without resorting to this argument:
...
> Does that make sense?
Much clearer, thanks. I was annoyed by the increasingly fine
hair-splitting - thanks for bringing the level back to the realm of the
meaningful.
signature.asc
Description: Di
[Humberto Massa]
> > It had equated the two of them in the first part of the phrase.
[Raul Miller]
> The GPL did not use the word "equals".
> Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals".
Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
distinctions as claimi
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >That's another re-statement of what "a work based on the Program"
> >means.
> >
> The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
> the "a work based on the program" is "a derivative work under co
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
containing...", which is NOT a re-stateme
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later
> > version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is
> > free software
I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting
the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't
entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with
the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In
the past, I have trie
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
> that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
> copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
> containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "deriv
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
>>Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and
>>then, after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what
>>is a "derivative wo
> > On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> > > contract, one is entitled to contract-law standards of the
> > > reasonableness of one's attempts to cure a breach when notified. The
> > > "automatic term
On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
> Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-)
> On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> contract, one is entitled to contrac
> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E
> - "the Program" (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - "the Program") (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates
> > > what
> > > "work based on the Program": means.
>
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > > such program or work, and a "work based o
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
