Steve Langasek writes:
> though, of course, our own *local* bureaucracy is such that it would
> likely take some time before the DFSG were ever modified. :-)
I know.
> >> I might suggest, however, you approach the LSB or other larger free
> >> software standards organizations regarding a comm
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> Finally, as Steve pointed out, I'm sure the OSI would wish to maintain
>> their own autonomy in determining if particular licenses are "open
>> source", just as we in Debian need our own autonomy in doing so.
> We could still do s
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 09:54:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> >I fail to see how a useful software license could be DFSG-free
> > and have a detrimental click-wrap license. Perhaps you could provide an
> > example?
>
> Here's an example, but more to the point, where in the DFSG does it
Adam DiCarlo writes:
> I applaud this, but I don't think a literal merging of the OSD and
> DFSG (from which the OSD derived) is feasible, nor does it really (in
> itself) create solidarity with us or other free software projects.
No, but it's a start. At very least what could happen is a peri
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 09:35:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I'm inclined to believe that your second example is also a minor
> > issue, because if the software is DFSG-compliant in all other
> > respects, it should be possible to legally remove the click-wrap
> > requirement from the co
Simon Law writes:
> Public domain software that is unlicensed does not have the
> protection of copyright law. Therefore, it is likely to meet all the
> DFSG criteria.
How can it? There is no license, so how can it meet #3 Derived Works?
I'm not being trivial and pointless here, I'm bein
Steve Langasek writes:
> [CC:ed to debian-policy, which seems a more likely forum for discussing
> changes to core documents.]
I was told that debian-legal was the place to hold this discussion.
> I suspect that I speak for a fair number of developers in saying that
> self-determination is im
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 16:57, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > One is that software must comply with the DFSG to be a
> > part of Debian, and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of
> > public-domain unlicensed software.
>
> As far as I know
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 07:41:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I could be mistaken, but I think OSI only approves licenses that it
> regards as satisfying the OSD.
I'm an idiot. I was thinking of OSI's "Open Software License." [1]
(They also have another called the "Academic Free License.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:33:34AM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
> xineplug_decode_gsm610.so - xine's gsm610 is GPL, MPlayer's is not? :)
> Nice.
> WE say it's GPL.
> Its original author says it's GPL.
>
Forwarded to debian-legal
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Sorry for not replying to teh thread, i'm not subscribed to this list.
Gabu FWD'ed the thread and it seems that so many debian ppl thinks and
says very false statements. So I have to tell you some comemnts and the
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Unfortunately, DFSG doesn't discuss what sorts of modifications can be
> restricted.
Implicitly, no sort of restriction on modification is permitted, except
those already mandated by copyright law (removing someone's copyright
notices
Dear List.
As some of you stated on debian-devel, xine in Debian doesn't include illegal
parts. I have to assure you it _DOES_ . Take a look at libxine1.deb :
xineplug_decode_ff.so 829032- this is libavcodec, the MPEG4/DivX decoder
Did you pay the royalty to
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > One is that software must comply with the DFSG to be a
> > part of Debian, and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of
> > public-domain unlicensed software.
>
> As
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:41:46PM -0800, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> > Also, are you asking Debian to automatically accept as suitable any
> > licenses that the OSI approves?
>
> I believe he was only talking about the OSD (Open Source Definition),
> not just 'any OSI-approved license.'
I could be mi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:33:58PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> > We want to explore convergence between the Open Source Definition, and
> > the Debian Free Software Guidelines. OSI is interested in mending
> > differenc
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Another problem is that the DFSG does not prohibit a license from
> > requiring a specific form of affirmative assent known as click-wrap.
>
> I have a vague memory of such
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
> > writing to you today in that stead.
>
> > We want to explore convergence between the Open Source Definition, and
On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> One is that software must comply with the DFSG to be a
> part of Debian, and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of
> public-domain unlicensed software.
As far as I know, public-domain software does not exist. The only way
for a program to
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The OSD appends the following text:
>
> Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there
> must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more
> than a reasonable reproduction costpreferably, downloading vi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
> writing to you today in that stead.
N.B. I am CCing you since you do not have a Mail-Followup-To:
that says otherwise. If you are reading this list, plea
[CC:ed to debian-policy, which seems a more likely forum for discussing
changes to core documents.]
Hi Russ,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
> writing to you today in that stead.
> We want to exp
Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
writing to you today in that stead.
We want to explore convergence between the Open Source Definition, and
the Debian Free Software Guidelines. OSI is interested in mending
differences in our community, so that we can stand togeth
23 matches
Mail list logo
