Breaking the thread and changing the subject.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
> And, the real killer, it fails the Chinese dissident test rather
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
> > > this thread).
> > I think it's prett
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:06:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c > newsource.c) is irreversible
> > (lossy), but (assuming the source names don't collide under this
> > transformation) produces the same binary, and is (probably) just as
> > readable/editabl
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:47:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'd really rather punt on this, as a real court might, and not rule on
> this until an issue comes before us where it is the only thing standing
> between a package and Debian main. (I think the legal slang for this
> is, "the is
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Here's a disastrous consequence. [...]
In this context (but not directly on-topic), I'd like to tell about
a little service we had running at Wapit, where I worked on Kannel[1].
It was a limited facility for web browsing via
Hola amig@:
Me llamo Beatriz y te escribo desde Madrid, España. Formo parte de un equipo
del Movimiento Humanista y me gustaría comentarte algunos temas.
Hoy son ya millones de personas las que experimentan cómo la sociedad en que
vivimos se deshumaniza día a día. El ser humano ha perdido todo va
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Which is ambiguous in itself.
Duly noted.
I've been conviently ignoring the ambiguity (for now). Suffice it to
say that between the abiguity and USC Title 17 Section 107 [not to
mention the impraticality of finding someone who modifies without
distri
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > that's enough reason for
> > me to stop releasing code under "version 2 or later" of the GNU GPL:
> > the persistent spectre that future versions will prohibit certain
> > sorts of functional modi
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You're ignoring 2 itself:
>2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
>portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
>and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of
>Section 1 above, p
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:39, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
> > clause to the GPL.
> Why don't you read the actual (2)(d),
That's what I did.
> and propose changes:
Pipe it through "sed /./
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
> users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
> any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
> request transmission to that user of the Pro
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also am curious as to whether Unisys can collect royalties after
> their patent runs out. I suspect this may be illegal, or at least
> immoral.
They can collect fees from anyone who has contracted to pay them
fees. But once the patent runs out,
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> > > Does anyone believe the GPL unambiguously *dis*allows that
> > > interpretation?
> >
> > I do. 2c applies to running of the program
>
> Please re-read (2)(c). It restricts the *modification* of the program.
2c requires that, when modifying the pro
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
> some versions of the gif file format.
Minor history. Unix had "compact", which used Huffman compaction.
Compress came along later, and the main force behind it was Usenet.
I
I said earlier:
The reason I dislike the "Affero bit" is that it is a further
restriction on freedom. I stand for freedom. I like freedom. I
learned about freedom from RMS, but he has apparently decided that
freedom is no longer all it's cracked up to be. Is there any value in
compla
Can we please, please, please start another thread to discuss this?!
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
> >> GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF
I remind d-l, since it seems not to have noticed, that the AGPL is at:
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:39, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The major change is section (2)(d), which says, in short, "If the
> > program has quine-lik
I'm cc'ing debian-legal for the legal part of this discussion.
LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
some versions of the gif file format.
There may not be reason to exclude lzw and related code as the LZW
patent is "running out".
http://lists.debian.org/debian-le
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:39, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
> > that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
> > would be happy for it to brew some mor
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
> > apply.
>
> Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
> uninteractive GPL-licensed
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:32, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 5. There's an exception.
> >
> > 6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
> > library) isn't itself interactive.
> >
> > 7. Just about every user of GNU readli
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
>> BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the
>> source to a modified program AND that program is intractive.
>
> No! (2)(c) doesn't contain the first part of that -- it doesn't
> requ
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
>
> Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> of the GPL?
Since I think somethi
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
> >
> > I think it's brilliant.
>
> I get nervous when people
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
>
> Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
The difference is that a guideline, as we use the term, is an
*internal* tool. We do not pretend that the guideline exhausts the
meaning of
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
> apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
--
Glenn Maynard
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 5. There's an exception.
>
> 6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
> library) isn't itself interactive.
>
> 7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating the GPL.
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive,
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
> RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
> the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
> comment period, and then the co
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Not so!
> >
> > On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
> >
> > In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
> > forward to a world founded upon
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
> > this thread).
>
> I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
> effect unl
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 23:43, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only*
> > provides an exemption if "the Program itself is interactive but does not
> > normally print such an announce
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:10:22PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Is indent(1) lossless?
No.
> Should it be considered a transformation?
No.
> It is certainly a trivial "modified work".
Exactly. It's a modification, not a transformation.
> The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c > newsource.c) is irr
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:05:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
> guess you could say grep responds to SIGKILL being sent, but that *does*
> seem far-fetched.
Poor example; in most Unices, if you put the SIGKILL smackdown on a
p
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
> impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
There's no way to keep the sourced locked into an obfuscated for
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > By that definition, Apache is interactive, as is the Linux kernel.
> >
> > Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
> > guess you could say grep responds to SIG
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:10:17PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
>
> Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
Ean, I expostulated one perspective in the following message:
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > By that definition, Apache is interactive, as is the Linux kernel.
>
> Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
> guess you could say grep responds to SIGKILL being sent, but that *does*
> seem far-fetched.
I think this is
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
> this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless distribution has occured.
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:55, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
> >
> > Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> > the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid i
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
> > > "...when started running for such interactive use in the mo
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:36:18PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
> > > themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
> >
> > (2)(c) concerns the act of modifi
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
> > "...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
> > way, to print or display an announc
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If, therefore, OSD-free gets written into some law granting special
> > patent rights to free software, say, then that's something that we can
> > all live with quite happily.
>
> You are assuming that the use of the definitions won't be inverted.
>
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> tb> No, it wouldn't, because Chinese dissidents want to share the
> tb> software with each other. That's distribution. But they
> tb> don't want to have to advertise their act
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> tb> Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and
> tb> have nothing barely approaching free speech, China also
> tb> happens to have a substantial population of
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> tb> Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, I can see that the RPSL talks about making modifications
> >> "publicly available", which is IMHO cumbersome.
>
>
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure, but so far the OSD has taken a fundamentally different tack from
> everyone else doing free software. By getting into the game of a
> "definition" and a rigid test for what is and is not free, a massive
> amount of very valuable flex
> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tb> No, it wouldn't, because Chinese dissidents want to share the
tb> software with each other. That's distribution. But they
tb> don't want to have to advertise their activities to the
tb> Chinese government.
a. iff you
> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tb> Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, I can see that the RPSL talks about making modifications
>> "publicly available", which is IMHO cumbersome.
tb> I would suggest turning this into a request rather tha
> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tb> Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and
tb> have nothing barely approaching free speech, China also
tb> happens to have a substantial population of computer users and
tb> hackers and people who might
Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I understand the "Chinese dissident" example, and it's
> actually illuminating, but as Russ points out, not at all captured
> in the DFSG. If it's important to the Debian community, it should
> probably be captured there.
The DFSG is an internal
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PS does anybody know whythe "chinese dissident" test has that
> "chinese" sticked to it? I find it a bit simplicistic. :)
Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and have
nothing barely approaching free speech, China also ha
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the "correct" wording
> (whatever that means) but isn't it easy enough to clearly state that
> if you modify RPSL-covered code and you *don't* distribute it, you are
> not obliged to distribute the cor
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I can see thatthe RPSL talks about making modifications
> "publicly available", which is IMHO cumbersome.
I would suggest turning this into a request rather than a
requirement. Then there's no problem at all.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm not sure you've answered the question I meant to ask. Let me try to
> rephrase: if debian-legal finds that such a requirement from upstream is a
> legitimate clarification of the GPL (rather than an additional
> restriction im
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Well, since the FDL has taken the term "transparent", how about if we call
> the output of tr (or gzip or indent) as "translucent forms". These are
> derived work that can be mechanically derived from the source form, and
> can be mechan
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Sure, but why limit it to web apps? Almost all apps communicate with the
> > user in some manner. How is delivering a blob of HTML to a renderer in
> > response to a query any different from delivering a blob of text to a
> > log
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:30:07AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I am not interacting with syslogd when it writes to a log file. I am not
> interacting with cron when it sends me email. These examples lack the
> critical feature of *interleaving*. However, I do interact with a
> website.
How c
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:35:19PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Similarly, I would argue that, if you derive benefit from using the
> PHP-Nuke engine to assemble your homepage into its final form for
> presentation, it is not *wholly* original.[1] Even if it is no longer a
> derivative work of t
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Also,
> > I think it's about time we made up our minds one way or the other about
> > the GNU FDL. The latter is an issue that we need to resolve internally
> > first.
> I thought Debian had decided that invariant sections, as they are now,
> are def
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> PS does anybody know whythe "chinese dissident" test has that
> "chinese" sticked to it? I find it a bit simplicistic. :)
We haven't gotten around to reformulating our reasoning in terms of "US
dissidents" yet...
--
St
> "sl" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sl> I have a hard time believing that this really provides any
sl> protection in the case where you *choose* to modify the source
sl> code without first verifying that you are able to comply with
sl> the terms of the license.
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, note that a lot of other GPL software (including all GNU text/code
> processing tools I'm familiar with) specifically exempts the output from
> being regarded as a derivative work of the processing tool. For bison,
> gcc and the like, there may
> "rl" == Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rl> To be clear, it pretty much already says that. Specifically:
[...]
rl> So, the gulf here is not as wide as some may think. I believe
rl> I understand the beef; proponents of the "Chinese dissident"
rl> litmus test would
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:44:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
>
> Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used earlier)
> and depl
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > I am only talking about the instance of a web app which, though it
> > exists as a series of discrete scripts that communicate with the user
> > through a stateless HTTP connection, presents a unified "interactive
> > session".
> Sure
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> What sort of transformations are permitted?
>
> I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
> recover, or with which the key is provided.
>
> This definition has a f
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The major change is section (2)(d), which says, in short, "If the
> program has quine-like functionality to give you a link to the running
> source code, you can't remove it."
I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
clause to th
Package: phpnuke
Version: n/a
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream, woody, sarge, sid
(John Goerzen is the person who originally noted this.)
/usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright contains the following:
##
#
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> That would solve the "chinese dissident" problem, at least (not sure
> how relevant the "desert island test", because I agree with something
> someone said here, that in some countries, Italy for example, you
> can't be
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:27:10PM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
As mentioned by Dave Turner, the talks between RealNetworks and the Free
Software Foundation are ongoing. Digging back through this thread has
been useful input for us. I need to get around to setting up
Branden Robinson said:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> What sort of transformations are permitted?
>
> I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
> recover, or with which the key is provided.
>
> This definition has a few advantages:
> * It's
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:36:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Is there consensus that DFSG#10 really is a grandfather clause? I've seen
> this interpretation offered a number of times, but I've never seen any
> strong agreement to it. I find the interpretation hard to buy, personally,
> given
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:08:25PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Valid, for us. The aim of this question was to determine whether the
> list thought we should accept this[1] as a valid interpretation of the
> GPL, as opposed to whether people thought it was non-free.
>
> [1] the hypothetical fro
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
"rl" == Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rl> We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in
rl> mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the "correct" wording
(whatever tha
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:27:10PM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> All I gotta say is "God bless Google", because otherwise I would have
> had no idea that such a personally relevant topic was being so hotly
> debated.
On this mailing list we generally feel that it's a good idea to reach an
internal
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also.
> Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could
> consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluckily, 1.2.11 is not
> functionally the sa
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:27:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > As a result, the output of tr a-z A-Z may be either source code *or*
> > object code, *depending on the intent of the party making this change*.
> > else that the GPL doesn't permit distribution of. I'm happy to be
> > generous a
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
>> GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is making
>> to specifically target the ASP problem.
>
> *fsf hat on*
>
> The Affero license (AGPL, http://www.affero.org/oagpl.ht
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:43:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> This also goes for programs that have never been interactive before
>> (and so never had a notice). If, say, I modified CVS such that it
>> entered an interactive mode when run without a
> "rl" == Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rl> We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in
rl> mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the "correct" wording
(whatever that means) but isn't it easy enou
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:18:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I've read it.
>
> > > In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
> > > "object code" as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
>
> > Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept t
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so
> > > long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example,
> > > this license abides by the DFSG: "This software is licensed under the
> >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
> > of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
> > conclude
> So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
> in sid will be updated as a consequence.
> The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also.
> Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could
> consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluc
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You believe there is *no* ambiguity regarding the words "reads commands
> interactively when run" and "started running for [...] interactive use",
> that this is always limited to cases where a single invocation of an
> executable program presents an int
Hi -legal folks
John changed license in 1.2.11 and released again with a full GPL
license, removing post-card condition, (he thanks for our
plain and polite management of the issue - for -legal people,
hip hip hurrah!!! :) ).
So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
in s
Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute,
> and to request the publishers to make the license clearer.
Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group
rather than just one person talking.
Yeah, le
88 matches
Mail list logo
