Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in a pathetic attempt to reign this flamewar in a bit, i'm going to offer
> a few (ok, realliy just one, but it's big ;p) simple, factual objections to
> the gpl, which knightbrd and i have both made at least twice, although the
> arguments have occasio
Seth David Schoen writes:
> But this document abruptly moved from a set of "Guidelines" to a
> "Definition", which is now being used as though it were a legal document
> by many people and entities who are completely unfamiliar with free
> software. If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lo
> This is not quite accurate. Those licenses are not restrictive enough in a
> certain sense.
>
> See, what you consider to be a problem can be interpretated as an advantage.
> If somebody writes Free Software, and wants to make absolutely sure that it
> stays free, he can use the GPL. This way, a
[Note: I am CC'ing the debian-legal mailing list, which is concerned
with the process of evaulating licenses to determine whether we can
consider them "free" and include them in the distribution.]
> "jrj" == Joseph M Reagle Jr (W3C) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jrj> We are going to have to put
I raised an issue with the W3O regarding DTD licensing. I'm including
here my previous correspondance. I have another followup in my next
message from the W30 and my response.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
--- Begin Message ---
Hello. I have the responsibility of a
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a US
> corporation.
Consider this scenario: I print out a piece of "export restricted" APSL
source code, fly to Germany with it, and give it to Marcus. According to
the US courts, I have done nothing ille
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 02:53:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> cast against rms/esr/whoever. the simple fact of the matter is, by some
> trick of wording, intentional or not, the "copyleft" or "viral" [...]
> sections of the gpl offer as a reasonable
> interpretation [...]
> that no non-g
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 12:14:50PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > I _DO NOT_ like liars and that is exactly what you people at OSI are
> > doing, lying to me.
>
> Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
> beyond your ability to believe, eh?
It is. Especially af
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> According to Joey Hess:
> > I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
> > non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
> > debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
> > be used in emb
in a pathetic attempt to reign this flamewar in a bit, i'm going to offer
a few (ok, realliy just one, but it's big ;p) simple, factual objections to
the gpl, which knightbrd and i have both made at least twice, although the
arguments have occasionally been lost in the midst of a sea of aspersions
According to John Hasler:
> I also find it a bit worrisome that you could misjudge such an
> obviously non-free license.
== PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS ==
== I don't speak for OSI on this, not yet anyway ==
We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a
US corporation. We were
According to Ben Pfaff:
> I've never heard a retraction from anyone at OSI, especially Eric
> Raymond, regarding whether the APSL meets the OSD. Is the OSI's
> official position now that the APSL does *not* meet the OSD?
We haven't had a board meeting since the Apple announcement.
Therefore, OSI'
> Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
> beyond your ability to believe, eh?
Please don't take Mr. Carter too seriously. He is a bit of a hothead, and
represents only himself.
However, I would like to hear that OSI has told Apple to stop calling the
present APS
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Don't even try to say that one bad example invalidates the argument. The
> BSD license on ash is incompatible with libreadline's GPL---is ash
> non-free? Not according to the DFSG. And yes, I do directly blame the
> GPL for this
Hello,
John has answered to your reply a lot better than I probably cxan do (thanks
John), but here are some remarks from me, too.
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 10:13:32AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 04:03:27PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > If you want to prevent lic
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
According to Joseph Carter:
> I _DO NOT_ like liars and that is exactly what you people at OSI are
> doing, lying to me.
Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
beyond your ability to believe, eh?
I've nev
According to Joseph Carter:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, not on behalf of OSI: Yes, this part of the APSL
> > needs to change. We're working with Apple on APSL mods, and the export
> > limit provision is already on the agenda.
>
> OSI
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
> > non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
> > debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
> >
According to Joey Hess:
> I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
> non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
> debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
> be used in embargoed countries.
For those of you
Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Much obliged for your interest. (I'm not on debian-legal; is it a public
> list?)
Yes it is. (Note the mail you got had the address wrong; I'm bad about that..
I'll pass the rest of your reply on to the right address.)
> My concerns about the export controls have been
20 matches
Mail list logo
