Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > KR> 1. it is only required for certain fields of endeavor (only > KR> academics are required to reference :), > > No. Everyone who publishes is affected. It doesn't "discriminate" > e.g. AI researchers. What's "research"? For example, how is i

IBM Jikes license appears to be not Open Source

After a day of study, it appears that while the draft IBM Jikes license I approved is Open Source, the released license, which I was not given a chance to vet, is not in my opinion an Open Source license. I'm reporting this to the Open Source initiative board for them to make an official finding.

Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

Milan Zamazal writes: > This is a question. You can look on publication which was received > through the program [SWI-Prolog] as a derived work of some kind. It can > be looked in similar way as e.g. output of ray tracer or compiler. The output of a compiler is not normally considered a derivati

Re: Intent to package Jikes

I wrote: > Nothing on the web site implies that it is a draft. Raul Miller writes: > I was going on Bruce's statement. I think Bruce meant that they might change it before using it on other packages. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RM> and that the maintainer should contact the author for RM> clarification on this issue. I've already done it. I think it would be best to stop speculations about SWI Prolog license until I receive some answer. Of course, this does

Re: Intent to package Jikes

Mike Goldman writes: > On the negative side, it appears that Jikes depends upon JDK, which is > presently non-free. Therefore Jikes would have to go into contrib > instead of main, if I understand policy correctly. You do. > These are made by running the source file java.g through a program call

Re: IBM Jikes license

> Perhaps Debian should have a patent policy document that is distinct from > the DFSG. Agreed. Or perhaps Debian folks should staff the LPF and the EFF, which both need some new energy as far as I can tell. I met Barlow a while back, he seems to have the right ideas, but not enough time/energy to

draft 1.4 of DFSG

The rationale for the license assumes that there will be fewer arguments about this new draft than the old DFSG. It might be the case that this much more complicated document elicits more interpretation rather than less. > (d) Anyone must be permitted to reverse-engineer it. I'm not sure this wor

Re: IBM Jikes license

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if IBM had left the patent clauses out entirely? Would we not > then be saying that the license was clearly DFSG free? Yet such a > license would grant *fewer* rights than does this one. In general, it's not possible to know about what patents co

Re: IBM Jikes license

Raul Miller writes: > However, this whole situation does indicate that "openness" or > "freedom" exist on a spectrum, and aren't black and white issues. What if IBM had left the patent clauses out entirely? Would we not then be saying that the license was clearly DFSG free? Yet such a license wo

Re: Intent to package - rhide

Remco Blaakmeer writes: > You could try to ask the author to loosen the wording a bit. Simply > inserting the word "please" before "contact" would be suficient since > that would make it a request instead of a requirement. I wouldn't want to ask anyone to bet any money on that. My wife the lingu

Re: IBM Jikes license

> The language in that clause is practically undecipherable. Their > lawyer didn't strive for readability. That's fair. I'm going by the language in the paragraph before that one when I distinguish that paragraph being about patents from the previous one being about copyright. > If the software

Re: IBM Jikes license

Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can I see it, please? The most recent draft is at http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9811/msg02391.html -- Raul

Paragraph # 5, "Termination"

I've asked IBM to tighten up paragraph 5, "Termination", as currently it looks as if it could be used to pull the plug in the case of any frivilous claim. Thanks Bruce -- The $70 Billion US "budget surplus" hardly offsets our $5 Trillion national debt. The debt increased by $133 B

Re: IBM Jikes license

From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For better or worse, we have a proposed re-write of the DFSG being > considered (and it's been being worked on for quite a while). Can I see it, please? > This rewrite would indicate that software is not DFSG if the copyright > holder is also the patent hol