On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:15:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't mean a Debian-specific license. I mean RMS giving the Debian
> project a copy of the manual, with political sections, but without
> marking them as invariant, under the understand that Debian would not
> remove the inv
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:04:20PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I'm not actually arguing that these patent agreements are good things.
> > However, the cat is out of the bag, everyone accepts these licenses as
> > free (even the FSF), and I don't thi
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
> For software it is not even a consideration. Why should we consider
> it for documentation, which is definitely less important?
Damn straight. We hold out for free software, and happily put
distributable-but-nonfree stuff on some of our mirrors. Why o
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:03:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of
> > the manual with no such license restriction,
>
> The only way the FSF can "give Debian a copy of the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ah, you mean the "how to apply this to your own program" section and
> the like.
...and the preamble, yes.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:04:20PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> I'm not actually arguing that these patent agreements are good things.
> However, the cat is out of the bag, everyone accepts these licenses as
> free (even the FSF), and I don't think objecting to similar conditions
> is going to do
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:03:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of
> the manual with no such license restriction,
The only way the FSF can "give Debian a copy of the manual" in any
meaningful sense would be to have a Debia
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Great! What I'd like to see is some kind of idea about how exactly
> > these exceptions are to be made, and by whom.
>
> I'm open to suggestions. Keep in mind that the Debi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, I think you misunderstood me. The liberties I referred have to do
> with including the parts *outside* the "Terms and Conditions" section, and
> not a statement about the legal merits of those terms and conditions.
Ah, you mean the "how to apply
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation.
> > > >It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information,
> > > >but even if they don't we'd rather no
On 4 Dec, Walter Landry wrote:
> I've already voted for this. I think that Invariant text is an
> abomination. It is unfortunate that the GNU manuals may be booted
> into non-free, but that is what happens when you forcefully interject
> political commentary into technical documentation.
Right
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > | (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's
> > > | Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then
>
>
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation.
> > >It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information,
> > >but even if they don't we'd rather not have them at all. Sometimes
> > >they're let in anyw
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Great! What I'd like to see is some kind of idea about how exactly
> these exceptions are to be made, and by whom.
I'm open to suggestions. Keep in mind that the Debian FTP
administrators will want to kept in the loop.
--
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:53:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > It's the same kind of backsliding that I'm worried about when it comes
> > to permitting invariant text into main. To date, license texts and
> > copyright notices are pretty well-defined documents with discrete
> > boundari
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:42:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The less "benign" the contents of the invariant section is, the less
> > of it should be acceptet. Of course some kinds of contents should not
> > be accepted at all - for example
> >
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am of the opinion that not explicitly talking about inclusive and
> exclusive exceptions in my proposal was an omission that should not have
> been made. You can be sure that I will address that issue in the next
> version of my proposal, if it isn
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, while I find the above personally offensive and without much in
> the way of merit, I personally am a pretty radical advocate of free
> speech rights. Outlaw hate speech today and they may decide tomorrow
> that, say, machine code isn't worthy
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's
> > | Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then
> > I would consider that "discriminating against a field
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A derived version of this manual must reproduce this notice
> > verbatim: "ALL NIGGERS MUST DIE".
> > where, I'm sure most of us can agree, the 160 bits of invariant
> > text here is 160 bits too much.
> Well, while I find the above personall
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was wondering if the license developed by IBM for its developerWorks
> site, named the Common Public License
> (http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license-cpl.html)
> is DFSG compliant.
I believe that it is the sam
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement
> | claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer
> | or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom
> | You file such action is referred
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Wrong analogy. The above says that that if you steal somebody's
> > car and they demand it back they lose the right to the software.
> I think software authors have a right to reject patents and attempt t
I was wondering if the license developed by IBM for its developerWorks
site, named the Common Public License
(http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license-cpl.html)
is DFSG compliant.
If I read it it seems OK form me but I do get lost in the legalese...
The reason for this quest
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:35:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[...]
> But you do find a megabyte acceptable, as long as it's split up among
> many different packages?
[...]
> Yes. I want my novella published, so I break it up into pieces, and
> attach each piece to a different package; don
Damn typos.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I agree, and it was never my contention that nothing that got in under
anything
> the ~32 thousand byte limit couldn't be nasty. Hence the provision for
[...]
> either th
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:42:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think it is wise to make a set of guidelines that center
> on *size* of the invariant text as the main parameter for the
> decision.
Belive it or not, I agree. The reason "size matters" -- or appears to
-- so much in
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I think the purpose of the clause is not to punish patenteers but to
> > protect the authors.
>
> There is no protection to be gained here, unless the authors want
> protection for their own unlawful patent infringements.
>
> Patents that concern the lice
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A proportional limit seems more sensible to me.
>
> It doesn't to me. I don't find a megabyte of invariant text acceptable,
> whether the total work is 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, or even 20 megabytes. Beyond
> that
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > http://crystal.win.tue.nl/license/rpl.html
> > Clause 8.2(b) seems to be a showstopper:
> > | 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement
> > | claim (excluding declaratory judgm
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > http://crystal.win.tue.nl/license/rpl.html
>
> Clause 8.2(b) seems to be a showstopper:
>
> | 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement
> | claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer
> | or a Contribu
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:13:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've
> > considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this
> > subject. I trust you don't the Mess
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To that end, I'm willing to bend a bit to accomodate the GNU folks on a
> utilitarian basis. However, such accomodation naturally requires
> artifices. One would be to say the FSF can do whatever it wants and
> we'll call it Free. Another is to se
Scripsit A Mennucc1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have read it, but my english fails me when it says:
> "2.1 subject to third party intellectual property
> claims:
> (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or
> trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reprodu
hi
I recently got interested in the openmath project
www.openmath.org
I was talking with a researcher from the RISC institute
and she told me they are licensing the Java library for openmath
as opensource, but she wanted to be sure if the license is opensource
I have read it, but my english f
"Scott M. Dier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 00:13, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > As yet, you haven't really said why you oppose a proportional system,
> > especially since it's easier to deliberately evade a fixed limit
> > system.
>
> Include a 8mb /dev/null file as one
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 00:13, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> As yet, you haven't really said why you oppose a proportional system,
> especially since it's easier to deliberately evade a fixed limit
> system.
Include a 8mb /dev/null file as one of your datafiles. It compresses
well, and it helps you
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've
> considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this
> subject. I trust you don't the Message-ID's and quotes for those as
> well, but all you have to do is tell me I hav
38 matches
Mail list logo
