Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Um ... who would you copy it to? You've already shared the changes > > with your friend. There's nobody else -- and once there is, you can > > give it to them, too. > > What? The point is that the license re

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 05:04:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > (2)(c) merely states that they *could* have such a notice. Most of the > > coreutils aren't interactive. > > I don't see how you can be go generous with your interpretation of > "interactivity" when it comes to PHPNuke but so

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:56:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > One cannot simultaneously argue that displaying a website is presenting a > user interface subject to 2c and that it constitutes distribution of the > program. > > If it constitutes distribution, it is fundamentally a different act t

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I believe you are mistaken; it is quite possible to include the GPL verbatim > > along with extra restrictions if you state that the license you are > > releasing > > your code unde

Re: PHPNuke license

> > I for one, still find myself in strong sympathy with the arguments put > > forward in that article, and I think it is inconsistent to apply its > > reasoning solely to the old 4-clause BSD license. > > Recall that this says that the 4-clause BSD license *is* free. So? Not every license that

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to > > have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF: > > > > I wish I had been more c

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:56:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > After some thought, I submit the following: > > One cannot simultaneously argue that displaying a website is presenting a > user interface subject to 2c and that it constitutes distribution of the > program. > > If it constitutes dis

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:49:34PM -0500, Simon Law wrote: > Do you mind, Brandon, if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort of > like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main. Do you mind spelling my name correctly? What does GNU lsh have to do with anything? Does it use the 4-

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:10:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Well, that's not what the license says, is it? The question here is > about people who will voluntarily comply with the license: does the > license restrict what they are doing? Thomas, I think Mr. Nelson is more interested

Re: PHPNuke license

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > James Troup wrote: >> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Do you mind, Brandon(sic), if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort >> > of like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main. >> >> Huh? The only reference to advert

Re: PHPNuke license

Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If it constitutes distribution, it is fundamentally a different act than > displaying a user interface, and thus 2c does not apply to the mere display > since there is no display going on. Yet in that case there would be grounds for claiming that the di

Re: PHPNuke license

Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I believe you are mistaken; it is quite possible to include the GPL verbatim > along with extra restrictions if you state that the license you are releasing > your code under is the GPL (and include it) as modified by the following > restrictions (and l

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Um ... who would you copy it to? You've already shared the changes > with your friend. There's nobody else -- and once there is, you can > give it to them, too. What? The point is that the license requires you to make them publically available. I d

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the > way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't > generally spew a copyright notice and warranty disclaimer to standard > output o

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:18:12PM -0500, Simon Law wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:19:34AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: > > > Could the maintainer of PHP-Nuke please have a little chat with > > > the author? > > I think that the a

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > However, if we accept the theory that the reader of the website is also > > a user of the program (which does have something going for it), GPL > > 2(c) says that the notice must be displayed "when started running for > > such inter

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:51:52PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > Although, if PHPNuke has javascript (or similar) that is being > executed on the client side, a case could be made that use of phpnuke > on a website is equivalent to distributing it. [If someone is aware of > the FSF or arguments say

Re: PHPNuke license

Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you mind, Brandon(sic), if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort > of like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main. Huh? The only reference to advertising in openssh's copyright file is a clause of a Regents of UoC copyright notice and that

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:55:56PM -0500, Simon Law wrote: > > Those don't apply to the copyright holder. The GPL applies only to people > > that receive a copy from them. The "You" in "You may not impost any further > > restrictions" in section 6 refers to people that receive the program from >