On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and
> technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which
> has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false,
> and claiming that
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:44:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms
> count?
If I felt confident being able to do that in advance, I'd be writing up
a Debian Free Software Definition that defined them.
> You seem to take th
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:44:12PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> > > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
> > > Why? Mo
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:31:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > The claim is that:
> > Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
> > and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
> > the Dissident test is just ano
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
> > Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil.
>
> Nonsense. I can j
Anthony Towns writes:
> The claim is that:
>
> Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
>
> and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
> the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways
> you're allowed to close the ASP
Anthony Towns writes:
> Or else stop fudging around the topic.
>
> The claim is that:
>
> Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
>
> and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
> the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:25:25AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I'm thinking of a license that extends the proposed DMCA-subversion
> clauses, in such a way that everyone who has access to the source also
> has permission to copy it. Then, if you add something similar to
> GPL's clause 6 ("You
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:41:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license
> > > > cannot
> > > >
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
> because it prevents me from making modifications without granting
> everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to
> pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG.
Wouldn't this principle als
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ASP condition]
>
> You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or
> rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program
> (but don't already receive copies).
Hmm, I wonder if this could be so
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies):
>
> You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights
> to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program.
>
> We've establish
Anthony Towns writes:
> Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
> you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
> go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
> people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, incl
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
> > > require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
> > > use it or
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
"The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom."
Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend wh
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
> > require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
> > use it or for what purpose, etc).
> > Which
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
>
> > b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a
> >non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial
> >developer of the Software t
Scripsit Jakob Bohm
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading
> > 1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified
> > source, if you make your modifications available under Thi
Anthony Towns writes:
> If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
> require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
> use it or for what purpose, etc).
>
> Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical
> concerns
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
> have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
> that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them.
But the proposals for "closing the loophole
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
> and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
> just individuals).
[...]
> My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
> to use.
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of sou
Anthony Towns writes:
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> * The
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to
> have many "sticks" with which to "beat" the licensee should be
> rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom.
I don't think we really need to worry about whether a l
* Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030317 17:31]:
> Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
> have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
> that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them.
Note the "generally". You are awar
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:19:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient.
>
> How not? There is a clear statement from the author that he considers
> his work to be covered by the GPL. That is all
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
Anthony Towns writes:
> We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people
> use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to
> give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks,
> too, since that'd require you to keep source available perma
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed
> > it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL.
>
> As you well know, the role of "spokesman for Debian" was arrogated by
> Joseph Carter, who fai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> that I should be able to modify it and copy it.
That's debatable, of course. One can get to free software v
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient.
How not? There is a clear statement from the author that he considers
his work to be covered by the GPL. That is all we usually require.
--
Henning Makholm"But I am a Sunni Muslim
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > recipient and all third parties".
> "in posesion of the (modified) software", right?
I'm not sure that is strictly necessary.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> recipient and all third parties".
^
"in posesion of the (modified) software", right?
Otherwise it can sound like "source must be available to e
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> as a person who does not feel that the QPL
> is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above.
For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should
probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections
to the QPL
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think it is counterintuitive to read the "directly or
> > indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary,
> > it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
>
> patches. The following restrictions
* Anthony Towns [030317 10:20]:
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies):
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights
to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program.
We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people
use a program, but
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > > freedom of the possessor of the code
> > You say that
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 05:16:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> I wasn't sure about the LPPL issues; I remember some discussions in
> the last moths and searched, but I haven't found a conclusion in the
> archives...
There hasn't been a conclusion; several people from those very long
discussion
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business
> use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to
> talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then.
> Otherwise, the next thing
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:02:55PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The
> > right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not
> > assumed to attach to copyright licenses in th
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It passes the written DFSG.
So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then?
> Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why
> they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the
> nu
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 05:44:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That's sidestepping the issue. Now: In which of Mark's cases should
> > Joe be forced to give his program to the upstrem author, Debian, the
> > FSF, or the governme
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:39:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
> > way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our "deprecation" of such
> > licenses to be
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 02:56:55PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I hope we agree that QPL as it stands *is* DFSG-free.
That is not, and has never been, my personal opinion.
--
G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are
Debian GNU/Linux |v
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
> >Software.
> >
> > This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not
> > distribution
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:01:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> > modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
> >
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it.
>
> Oh. Somewhat far out, I think. But nevertheless...
Then it should be harmless enough to ensure that the license can't be
interpreted this way.
> > But I don't think t
49 matches
Mail list logo
