I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
> And yet every proposal you put forth is "Debian must become more like OSI
> and the DFSG must become more like OSD."
... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
source licenses should be run past deb
John Goerzen writes:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:21:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Every license that has any interesting terms discriminates. The GPL
> > discriminates against people who don't want to give away their code.
> > The APSL discriminates against people who don't want to gi
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that
> > except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to
> > yours so that we can have them "converge". That doesn't make much
> > sense
Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> one of the freedoms required by the DFSG is
> that everybody has the same freedoms.
That is not a freedom anymore than existence is a perfection.
My freedom is what I am allowed to do. If there is something I am not
allowed to do, I am no less free bec
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:38:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
> > not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups
> > get different levels of fr
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:21:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> John Goerzen writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > > Further, a case could be made that it violates clase 5 ("No
> discrimination
> > > > against persons or groups") because it discri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Hi, I just saw the www.MPlayerhq.hu front-page post and read the large
archive and debate on debian-devel and debian-legal.
That was hours of re
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. It is a government-granted limited
monopoly to make and distribute copies
> On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 19:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[RMS doesn't make decisions for Debian...]
> > As much feedback during the FSF's public comment
> > period on GNU FDL 1.2 revealed, there are many people who disagree with
> > hi
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 08:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
> > > everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
> > > software
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 04:53, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:56:44 -0500,
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > The GPL forbids removing code from interactive programs which displays
> > > copyright notices
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:02, Russell Nelson wrote:
> And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language
> of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an
> elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and
> may decide anything they
On 28-Jan-03, 10:02 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily
> > excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with
> > not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it
> > disappoin
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
> > > "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Russell> Why not change the DFSG?
> >
> > Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
> > difficult for us to change the DFSG
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for
> > themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but
> > it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
> And y
Sam Hartman writes:
> > "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Russell> Why not change the DFSG?
>
> Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
> difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to.
That's an explanation of why it's har
> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to. IT would
probably be a minimum of six months or so before we can sort thes
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:50:17 +0100
Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What can we do with the www.distributedfolding.org software, which is
> under this license (http://www.distributedfolding.org/license.html):
It's not DFSG-free, for one. The first paragraph fails DFSG #6; it only
grant
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:16:45PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> >What's the value of having it in contrib instead of in non-free? That
> >sounds like a subterfuge to me.
> I'm just asking where it can go. Could it go in main? Formally it would
> be free and not "depend" in the package sense o
What's the value of having it in contrib instead of in non-free? That
sounds like a subterfuge to me.
I'm just asking where it can go. Could it go in main? Formally it would
be free and not "depend" in the package sense on anything non-free, but
it would require the installation of non-DSFG
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:50:17PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> What can we do with the www.distributedfolding.org software, which is
> under this license (http://www.distributedfolding.org/license.html):
> /*
> -- TR
Scripsit Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -- Disclaimer:
> --
> -- Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> -- documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes,
> -- without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:49:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Mark Rafn writes:
> > I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition
> > rather than a set of guidelines.
> This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
> everyone seems to be defending thei
Hi,
What can we do with the www.distributedfolding.org software, which is
under this license (http://www.distributedfolding.org/license.html):
/*
-- TRAjectory Directed Ensemble Sampling (TRADES)
--
-- Author: Howar
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
> > > everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
> > > software from Deb
Why are you CC'ing me when the Debian list policy is not to?
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
> > everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
> > software fr
No need to CC me, I'm on the list.
Henning Makholm writes:
> I dimly recall that the test we applied in the IBM was: If the patent
> licence grant and its associated termination clause were deleted from
> the license, would it then be free? The answer was "yes", and the
> license should not be
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
> > give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
> > controls.
> FYI, the IBM Common Public License [1], which has been approved for
> Debian, has a similar cl
Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
> everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
> software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have.
We sure do have. Debian is a volunteer organzation t
On 27-Jan-03, 12:57 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > > Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
> > > guidelines. Why do you want two?
> >
> > We don't want two, we have only one.
>
> You seem uninterested in compromise.
Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
> not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups
> get different levels of freedom -- then it is not DFSG-free.
Count me in among those who disagree. A
On 27-Jan-03, 23:49 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Undoubtedly you pointed to the
> DFSG or to case law, or else you made a new precedent. But when you
> make a new precedent, you have to say exactly why, and justify it.
> Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it inc
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Take out the R&D and personal use grants. Does it still comply with
> > the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to
> > make the software DFSG-nonfree?
>
> Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there
Hi Russell Nelson,
> Glenn Maynard writes:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00448.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> > > Why not change the DFSG?
> >
> > There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG
> > as a set of human guidelines, rather than
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:23:04AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
> > want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
> > requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
>
> Debian list policy is
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to
> point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner.
Yes; that's why the DFSG is the Debian Free Software _Guidelines_. It's
written to require intell
Glenn Maynard writes:
> I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
> want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
> requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless requested.
> I
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:29:37AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The problem with relying on human judg
Mark Rafn writes:
> I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition
> rather than a set of guidelines.
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian. But that is a right
39 matches
Mail list logo
