On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:43:08PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 13:43 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >We cannot just go ahead and ignore all that, saying
> >that "we don't have a definition for anything other than free
> >software, so we'll take that definit
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:56:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
> > can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
> > to distribute cop
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 13:51, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
> Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
> derived work without written permission.
>
> IIUC, it is absolutely not DFSG-compliant, is it?
>
> It means
John Goerzen wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
>> King James Bible that's linked into a reader application?
>
>It's just that. You haven't transformed the document into object code;
>yo
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:51, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
> Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
> derived work without written permission.
>
No, it forbids the use of their names in derived *Products*, not
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:12:20PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>Nowhere did I suggest that Debian must or even should distribute
> documentation! Indeed it would seem Debian in violation of the 100%
> criteria if software is interpreted in the normal manner.
My point here is that redefining
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:10PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I'd like to know more about this "intellectual honesty" that compels
> the word "software" to include documentation when used in the Social
> Contract, but not when used a little further down the page[0] in the
> guidelines.
Andrew Suffield wrote:
We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> >Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
> >Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
> >drive.
>
> And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
> >Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
> >Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
> >computer to read a printed documentation.
>
> Is
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 03:06:11AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > My comments are not limited to the FDL debate, but seek to address a more
> > fundamental question: Do software guidelines serve us well for non-software
> > items? My answer is no,
MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free [...]
Please note that they
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are
for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software
contains
the set of documentation.
I'd like to know mo
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
>Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
>computer to read a printed documentation.
Is http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/scratch/ifupdown-0.6.4/ifupdown.nw
software or
I just looked at the license for some Apache software, like Xalan,
Xerces of FOP. I noticed that it forbids the use of their name in
derived work without written permission.
IIUC, it is absolutely not DFSG-compliant, is it?
It means that Debian must have written permission to redistribute the
pac
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be "through
>> electronic communication" to qualify:
>
> Ok, though this is an arbitrary distinction, and I'd argue that something
> that restricts e-mail co
Said Wouter:
> I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
> whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
> be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free,
> and if not, what the rules for declaring documentation to be free ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
>> using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
>> as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
>>
>> In the list you
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > And while you may debate the enforcability of this in the US, it may be
> > enforcable elsewhere, and our preference has always been to assume licenses
> > are enforcable as written.
>
> Indeed. And elsewhere, the FSF grants a
Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My comments are not limited to the FDL debate, but seek to address a more
> fundamental question: Do software guidelines serve us well for non-software
> items? My answer is no, but obviously it is being discussed.
You have yet not disclosed which guid
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Depending on exactly what it is, probably. For example, if I were to
> use a (hypothetical) GPLv3-covered firewall, would I have to offer my
> firewall code --- rules and all, gotta have complete source --- for
> download, just because it routed
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:56:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
> > can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
> > to distribute cop
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
> can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
> to distribute copyright notices and licenses, but as a pragmatic
> concession to copyri
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 13:43 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
international agreements and most countries worldwide
make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is
protected by law.
Well, at least in the US, software is a literary work. There are
certainly special
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are
for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software
contains
the set of documentation.
I can only assume that it was easier for the
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 06:51 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero
GPL
requirement for remote services to offer users the code. Do you object
to that? If so, why?
Depending on exactly what it is, probably. For example, if I w
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 11:20 US/Eastern, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
(And while the lawyers seem currently struggling here in
Germany if usage of a program is copying to RAM and thus limited
by copyright law or not, I just handle immoral things as void).
Really? Just now? In the US, Title 1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually and
> > logically dishonest to claim certain requirements for some types of
> > non-program data in Debian, other requirements for other data, and do it all
> > unde
Sergey V. Spiridonov said:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>> After all, what utility would this distinction serve beyond providing
>> one a means of routing around the DFSG's inconvenient restrictions?
>
> Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
> which usually belong to
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The law is able to allow thing to fall between catagorisations, and then
> spend large quantities of time and effort dealing with the things that
> fall into the gap. Pragmatically, Debian can't - having to spend
> significant periods of time dealing
Branden Robinson wrote:
After all, what utility would this distinction serve beyond providing
one a means of routing around the DFSG's inconvenient restrictions?
Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
which usually belong to the documentation. I will not buy a
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
> > protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
> > terminology is intended to be strictly denota
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Even if we end up with a different definition (which is unlikely as the
>> DFSG are simple and can be applied to documentation as well)
> I beg to differ.
In which case, you need to de
John Goerzen wrote:
>Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
>Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
>drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
King James Bible that's linked into a reader appli
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>Going back to the matter at hand, whether the FDL is free or not, it's
>most of all important to decide whether the DFSG can apply to a license
>such as the FDL. It's important to note that the FSF has created this
>license since it felt there to be a difference between 'so
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I continue to suspect that people are indulging an Aristotelian
> > categorization fetish solely as a means to an end, that end being to
> > compel the Debian Project to ship their favorite w4r3z in main, heedless
> > of the negative
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I find it very hard to quantify Beethoven's
> Ninth Symphony as software, even if it was recorded digitally, given that
> the invention of software postdated its composition by a LONG time [...]
Similarly, do we regard a popular performance of it as
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822?
RFC2822, you mean? ;-)
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeu 07/08/2003 à 23:01, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > (a waste of time IMO, since it should mean the same
> > > thing).
> >
> > Are you 100% sure whether all Debian Developers agree on that? If so,
> > I'll shut up.
>
> Even
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:01:06PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Are you 100% sure whether all Debian Developers agree on that? If so,
> I'll shut up.
I am pretty certain that for any given statement, you will find at
least one Debian developer who will not agree with it. That path has
no end.
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs
>> are literary works with the exception that moral rights do not subsist.
> You're saying it yourself. 'With the exception that...'
1. Other jurisdictions allow moral rights to e
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:52:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's the reason for the FDL; you might disagree
> with the way it does, but the FDL does attempt to defend the moral
> rights of the author.
Objection. Please justify this.
As best I can tell, all the FDL defends is the profitee
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:41:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> But the GPL itself starts with:
> | GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> | Version 2, June 1991
> |
> | Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> | 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Bosto
Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was my first post on this topic. You've got me confused with
> someone else. [...]
Quite likely. Apologies. Hence the vague terms.
> Oh, and I was joking.
It is remarkable that your jokes are not dissimilar from the posts of
someone else ;-)
[.
Le jeu 07/08/2003 à 23:01, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > (a waste of time IMO, since it should mean the same
> > thing).
>
> Are you 100% sure whether all Debian Developers agree on that? If so,
> I'll shut up.
Even if we end up with a different definition (which is unlikely as the
DFSG are simpl
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
> protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
> terminology is intended to be strictly denotative and carefully
> defined, contracts and simila
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
> > is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
>
> If
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:56:38PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 17:17 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >This one probably doesn't count, any more than putting something in a
> >tarball - it's a transport encoding change, with no appreciable effect
> >on the
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> What are you trying to say here?
> >>
> >> * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
> >> mail-order typesetting scenario?
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper co
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
> using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
> as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
>
> In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe
> r
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > 1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
> >software benefit our users?
> Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and software means
> 0s and 1s -- so nearly e
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:27:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
> >to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
>
> One good definition of software is "the part
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:28:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Additionally, the FSF
> >is not alone by claiming software isn't the same thing as
> >documentation; international agreements and most countries worldwide
> >make a distincion between h
Steve Langasek wrote:
>It seems likely to me that SPI has similar cause to request declaratory
>judgement; although Debian GNU/Linux has not been explicitly named as
>an infringing product, SCO has claimed that the Linux kernel is
>infringing -- and since Debian uses the Linux kernel, the FUD is
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:12:58PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:43:20PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If we go the general resolution way, I propose the following:
> >
> > * First and foremost, we should ask our co-developers whether or not
> > we agree that Sof
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Additionally, the FSF
>is not alone by claiming software isn't the same thing as
>documentation; international agreements and most countries worldwide
>make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is
>protected by law.
You're muddli
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:19:50PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] international agreements and most countries worldwide
> > make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is
> > protected by law.
>
> Please substantiate this. UK law
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:19:13AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 03:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > Perhaps a good way of summing up the problem is this:
> >
> > They're discriminating against a field of endeavor. Now, it's Free to
> > discriminate against a business model, su
MJ Ray wrote:
> Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
> > full write access to the machines providing these services.
>
> I think that you have broken normal logical extension in two emails about
> this licence now.
T
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
>> >
>> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each
>> > other in a license, so would all require full source
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:43:20PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If we go the general resolution way, I propose the following:
>
> * First and foremost, we should ask our co-developers whether or not
> we agree that Software and Documentation should fall under the same
> set of rules to be c
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each
> > other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly
> > available.
On Thu, 7
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] international agreements and most countries worldwide
> make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is
> protected by law.
Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs
are literary works with the
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
If I hack the hell out of some yacc/lex output and put that in my
program, the yacc/lex files aren't the source anymore, the C code is.
Same deal with hacking a binary directly.
I agree with you. I'm just saying there is a diff
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 17:40 US/Eastern, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"reasonable help" is very unclear, and has no time limit on it. Am I
compelled to answer emails about it for the rest of eternity?
Because of the exponential decay in interest
Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
> full write access to the machines providing these services.
I think that you have broken normal logical extension in two emails about
this licence now. Why do you think that offeri
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 17:17 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This one probably doesn't count, any more than putting something in a
tarball - it's a transport encoding change, with no appreciable effect
on the content
EBCDIC is not a subset of ASCII, I'm pretty sure. Any translation is
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 17:06 US/Eastern, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:59:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Otherwise, it'd be easy to get around the GPL by preferring to use a
hex editor to change strings in an executable --- saves compiling
time,
after all.
I th
MJ Ray wrote:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.
We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
full write access to the machines providing these services.
After all, I c
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
>> ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
>
> I could agree with you, except tha
Hi all,
I've been thinking about the FDL issues lately, and have been reading
up on some of the flames that have been going on about it. One thing
that's really striked me is this: as Debian Developers, we've all been
formally asked whether we agree with the social contract and with the
DFSG; and
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
> > ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
>
> I could agree with you, except tha
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Do you object to that? If so, why?
>
> Vehemently. It removes the ability of users to privately modify work,
> which IMO is simply not free. Almost any piece of software in a business
> is used (indirectly in many cas
I haven't read the license fully yet, so please ignore me if this issue is
addressed, or there's a phrasing that makes it unimportant.
What, exactly, do you have to distribute to "users" under this clause?
Does it not have to be the complete service itself? How does that exclude
the data and
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> It is exp
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
> ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
I could agree with you, except that networked systems can't really
be hindered too much
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 10:22, MJ Ray wrote:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
> > distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
> > person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
>
> How does this
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 03:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
...
> I think this era isn't very different from that of 15 years ago. RMS,
> and the FSF, are spooked by the success of web service providers.
> They didn't seem very upset by modems, remote terminals, and
> timesharing systems, though. I thin
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's news. Earlier versions of the APSL were declared non-free because
> "The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
> your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.":
It's not news. It may have been news when Affero
Wolfgang Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:30:17 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I don't think so. AFAIK, these restrictions are not imposed by the
>> license, and apply to U.S. citizens only.
>
> Doesn't this mean that we should put it to non-us? If we let it on the
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:19, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> > make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> > obligations apply upon source code distribution.
>
> I'm puzzled
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
>> distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
>> person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
>
> How does this differ fro
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:30:17 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Wolfgang Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Does this mean that we have to put mozilla to non-free?
>
> I don't think so. AFAIK, these restrictions are not imposed by the
> license, and apply to U.S. citizens only.
Doesn't this
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030807 12:51]:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.
Hopefully not. (When I remember the "PHPNuke licese"-thread there
was some word that it will not.)
> Do you object
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that such a licence term is particularly egregious. Look at
> the GPL requirement - if you get the binary, you can get the source. Now,
> who gets binaries? Users. So, users get the source to the programs they're
> using. Now move to
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
>> DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
>> viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
> It is expe
> I've discovered following note on the mozilla download page
> (http://mozilla.org/releases/#1.5) :
>
> This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations
> ...
>
> Does this mean that we have to put mozilla to non-free?
No. That statement is not part of the license. It's
Wolfgang Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this mean that we have to put mozilla to non-free?
I don't think so. AFAIK, these restrictions are not imposed by the
license, and apply to U.S. citizens only.
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
> distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
> person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
How does this differ from your current obligation to either provide
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> obligations apply upon source code distribution.
I'm puzzled by this phrasing. Don't you mean binary (or any)
distr
This is probably my weekly restating of position. Don't be surprised if
I don't contribute much to this thread any more.
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only
*Your* common usage. To me, software are the bits in the
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:16:21AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has
> now declared to be a Free Software licence:
>
> "(b) to use Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way
> to provide a service, including but not
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:19:54AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > As for "hermits and leeches", why are casting aspersions?
>
> It was a colourful flourish. Hermit is not a derogatory term (and
> hermits will not be affected if they don't communicate). Leech was used
> to indicate a scenario where
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
>
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
>
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:23, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--"the freedom
> > to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play,
> > without even mentioning that they exist"--is now only useful to hermi
Hi,
I've discovered following note on the mozilla download page
(http://mozilla.org/releases/#1.5) :
This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations
and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain
countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something simil
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is "the part of a computer that's not
hardware". Another i
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:23, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeu 07/08/2003 à 11:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > > In case anybody's interested, I've just commited the GPLv2 'LICENSE'
> > > > into CVS,
> > > > to avoid further useless arguments.
> > > Could you pleas
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
