On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:50:54AM +, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
> > original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
> > compromise with us regarding qmail
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:58:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed "tentacles of evil" test:
> >3. The Tentacles of Evil test.
> > [...] The license cannot allow
> > even t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:14:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
> response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
> DFSG-interpretation proposal.
>
> Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitutio
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:44:15PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four
> freedoms are written, talks about:
> #You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> #privately in your own work or play, without even mentio
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Clause 6 still doesn't come into play if the derived application is
> > released under the QPL itself, in which case one has the choice of
> > distributing under clauses 3 and
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:23:30AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> * If you install MS Word on more systems than you have bought copies,
> you're violating MS copyright (according to the BSA). If you install
> OpenOffice on the same number of systems (still internally), is it
> distribution?
If the "yo
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:04:12PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:01:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I do. And so apparently does the RIAA, who feel it's an infringement of
> > copyright for people to put their own ripped audio onto sharable volumes
> > at work, a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:10:04PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> I don't think any license could work for 95 years (assuming no future
> CTEAs).
See, I *knew* you could be an optimist...
;-)
--
G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:38:55PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual
> Fair Use analysis in another message.
Pardon my language, but fuck Texaco. If your reading of the holdings of
the case are correct, I see no reason why this cour
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:00:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> The intent is actually to protect downstream people from your mistakes.
Please don't be a babysitter. :-/
> Consider: person A at corporation X changes something in program P,
> then quits, and then person B prepares P for distrib
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'd like to go on record as requesting that the FSF clarify this in
> > future versions of the GNU GPL, such that only distribution of
> > modifications are limited by the licens
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:55:32PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Strike it and replace it with:
>
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to g
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient
Oops, I confused myself. This phrase "all third part
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:53:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > The GPL places lots of obligations on people in the interests of
> > preserving people's freedom. "Placing obligations" isn't equivalent
> > to "reducing freedom" (though they often coincide, and we should be
> > skeptical about
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
> > > > Now, one of his customers says, "that's really co
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
> without source, then
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
> > PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
> > thing -- instead, users choose to visit PH
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:59, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
> > > obligations on everyone.
> >
> > Or removing them, in the case of
Whoa, hold on. Your analysis is using a completely different set of
principles than Henning Makholm's. For you to analyze my cases
according to your principles instead of Makholm's, is to switch
standards on me mid-stream. I am currently in another few threads with
you about your principles for
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:10:04PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> The GPL is finally showing cracks after 14 years (12 for v2). I don't
> think any license could work for 95 years (assuming no future CTEAs).
> So, that's why there's the upgrade option.
I've always seen the upgrade clause as ensuri
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> > 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
>
> That's akin to someone releasing the source o
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain
> access to the work by descramb
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:30, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When you say, "every likelihood", I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
> > it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
> > app, although not impossible. Still, it se
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:26, Walter Landry wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
> > they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
> > neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Ma
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
> > modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
> > (2)(b) specifically mention distribution
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
algorithm from an application. I c
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >> Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
> > >> to see how it can appl
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
> > > the GPL has few restrictions on functional
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
> > ``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
> > to make GFDL d
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> > make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
> > without copyright law.
>
> It only makes i
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> [note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
> is provided further down in this message]
OK. It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.
--
Glenn M
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:24, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> My rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where
> the technically ideal solution is blocked by software licensing, then
> you're not dealing with free software. This is my version of freedom 0.
> (You could always get
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Why the GPL is free
> > > ---
> > >
> > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of t
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> Copyright (c)
[snip]
> Stuff in [] is optional. Stuff in <> needs to be replaced.
For those following along at home, this is (basically) the X11 license.
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
Don Armstrong
--
"A one-question geek test. If you ge
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you say "providing a service", you are inadvertently concealing a
> significant difference between printing an invoice for a customer, and
> the customer interacting with the software.
Excuse me? What is "printing an invoice" but "interacting with
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a "BSD-type" or say "maximally
> free" non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it).
You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause BSD
license. FE, see http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why the GPL is free
> > ---
> >
> > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > of the code.
>
> Doesn't this depend on which "reci
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
>
>
> The basic reason her
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
> > > Now, one of his customers says, "that's really cool, I want to be able
> > > to do the same for my customers." Ough
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> > and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> > distributes that program, in parts or
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
> PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
> thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke sites in part because
> of their specific, unique features.
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the
> > definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of
> > PHP-nuke or Apache.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> Here, I think Apache is closer
Copyright (c)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute,
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 05:01, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Richard Braakman wrotes:
> >>Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
> >>software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would
> >>go like this:
> >
> > > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> > > 2. The
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license
> details -- I'd like to just say "BSD license" or some appropriate standard
> that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someo
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
> > > applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, "can i
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
> > Now, one of his customers says, "that's really cool, I want to be able
> > to do the same for my customers." Ought that customer to be able to get
> > the source c
Admidst the storms of controversy, I'd just like to ask a (hopefully) simple
question... ;-)
The GPL is the "clear winner" for being a maximally "standard" copyleft free
license.
The BSD license is apparently not directly usable (mentions Berkeley
explicitly, etc), so these licenses are genera
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:02:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > > Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
> > > > project, and a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:45:02PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
> > obligations on everyone.
>
> Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
The GPL places lots of obligations on people in the interests of preserving
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:00:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
> > way "You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your binaries"
> > isn't onerous.
> It has been pointed out that t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> intention of distribu
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, I think we have to go back to looking at which restrictions we
> allow. For instance, we allow the GPL's section 4, which prohibits
> certain people (on account of their past actions) from copying,
> modifying, or distributing GPL'd software. Why?
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
> > obligations on everyone.
>
> Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
Hah. Forced publication requirements *remo
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
> without copyright law.
It only makes it more easily enforceable, and it operates purely as a
stick. I don't
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> > certain conditions.
>
> Why is this di
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
> > something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
> > to pass it on to a third party who in some c
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
> > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
> > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
>
> The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently unde
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you say, "every likelihood", I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
> it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
> app, although not impossible. Still, it seems that the clause could be
> reworded to take this into account.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page
> the actual license grant:
>
> ] JpGraph is released under a dual license.
> ]
> ] QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and
> ] educational use and JpGrap
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:29:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
> JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a "commercial use", and you
> are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
This comes back to Steve's message in
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > Only when you're playing the game of trying to push the definition of
> > "user" as far as you can push it. And that's a perfectly legitimate
> > and good thing to do when you're discussing a license text, but in
> > doing so you shouldn't
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
Maybe they meant the IBM patent on LZW :-)
Have you seen http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw.html ?
("The GIF Controversy: A Software Developer's Per
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
> obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with th
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:16, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> > > > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
> > > people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
>
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
> > > > harder
> > > > or impossibl
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
> they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
> neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> >> Anthony is quite reasonable i
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>
> Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
> another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
> important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
> publication or the Affero bit are on
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> >Also, Debian should not distribute software whose author has given an
> >indication that he intends to retroactively change a license. It's under
> >question whether this is possible, but I don't want to be a test case.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> I have hea
Mark Rafn wrote:
If the clarification is that it IS a license requirement, or that he
intends to retroactively change the license, it's not distributable at
all.
Unless i remove all GPL modules not from FB and move the packet to
non-free. Do you agree?
Perhaps. We'd have to veri
So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
which he things should be no difficulty at all.
But as Henning has pointed out, the QPL doesn't *have* a forced
publication requirement. Thanks to Henning for actually
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
> QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
> be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this
list.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> >If the clarification is that it IS a license requirement, or that he
> >intends to retroactively change the license, it's not distributable at
> >all.
> >
> Unless i remove all GPL modules not from FB and move the packet to
> non-free. Do you agree?
Per
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:57, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:25PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>
> > This seems to be a serious stretch of the actual wording of (2)(d). One
> > could also argue that any CD which includes GPL'd software is a
> > derivative work of that software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes:
> QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
> be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
>
> References
> 1. http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph
> 2. http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/jpgprolicense.pdf
This unfortunatel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for
> php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph
> Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source
> use (you can even use QPL for commerci
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> tb> They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
> tb> rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
> tb> rules of the GPL), and they do not enhan
Anthony Towns writes:
> In the way you're going on about it, yes, it is. What David's talking
> about is this: if you've got a business, whose profits are based around
> a monopoly on distributing a piece of software, you can't replace your
> major bits of software with GPLed software or relicens
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
> passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
> be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its root, the absence of
restrictions. The fact that s
Anthony Towns writes:
> The idea is that:
>
> (a) gcc -o foo foo.o bar-gpl.o forms a work (foo) based on bar-gpl.o
> and thus that people should make the full source of foo available
>
> (b) gcc -o foo foo.o -lbar-gpl is much the same as the above
> gcc -o foo ba
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
> > > project, and adds some code his friend was telling him under NDA. He
> > > puts it up on the
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clause 6 still doesn't come into play if the derived application is
> released under the QPL itself, in which case one has the choice of
> distributing under clauses 3 and 4 instead.
>
> This is no worse than a GPL'ed library (of which Debian does
> d
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sample onerous conditions:
> > 1) Pay money.
> > 2) Send your changes back always.
> > 3) Pay money on request.
>
> "I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these."
>
> > 4) Send your c
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
> something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
> to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
> demanding source from the autho
There are key points in what you said:
Mark Rafn wrote:
Honestly, unless/until we can get a clarification (e-mail is fine, and it
should be included in the distribution) from Mr. Burzi, I'd say this is
not ok to distribute at all, even in non-free.
I agree with you. We've got a point in wh
Hi,
I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for
php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph
Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source
use (you can even use QPL for commercial opensource use). The
commercial license is used for c
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 6) The infamous evil addendum is included in "INSTALL" file , not in
> "COPYING" (i don't now if this fact is relevant at all), as follows:
>
> "I M P O R T A N TN O T E
>
> IMPORTANT: I saw many sites that removes the copyright line in the footer
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:30:00 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
> > Maybe a search with the keyword LZW may be enough?
>
> As you're not exac
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sniffen (who secretely wants to write proprietary software)
>
> I think you just lost your credibility in this discussion.
Absolutely: I'm extremely public about it. I want to write
proprietary software. I insist on the integrity and privacy of my
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
>>> have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
>>> Currently those
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:41:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
> > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing"
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:21AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> But that's exactly the error we reprimand legislators and businesses
> for: believing that a different medium requires new laws to make it
> safe. That I receive the output of software over HTTP should change
> nothing from the ca
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
> Maybe a search with the keyword LZW may be enough?
As you're not exactly sure what you're looking for, isn't this rather
futile (and possibly dangerous[1])
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
> should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
> And that list need not include the author.
Uh, why, exactly? How is that different than sayi
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Since ocaml is a compiler (and its libraries are LGPLed), its clause 6
> > probably never comes into play. I'd like a better example :)
> find /usr/share/doc/ -type f -maxdepth 2 -name copyright |=20
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
> should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
> And that list need not include the author.
Rather, you should be able to decide who *you* gi
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
> > people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
> > obligation to distribute to a fixed third party, too.
> In
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
> > all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions"
> > without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
