On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:18:02PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> DFSG#10 does not say "the GPL used on gcc".
True.
However, that is an example of the GPL.
> > I don't remember any convincing reasoning that there's an implied "all"
> > there. The closest to that was "we're more concerned about
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:21:17PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's still the GPL, and it's not a case of strange interpretations--GPL#8
> > is explicitly intended to be used in this way. I don't think any reasonable
> > interpretation of DFSG#10 can make it say "the GPL is free, unless GPL#8
>
> > > Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Huh?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:40:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You said:
>
> > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not.
>
> Huh?
You said:
> The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
> the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not fr
> > DFSG#10 does not contain the word "all", nor any of its synonyms.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:27:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This is completely irrelevant; we're talking about your interpretation
> of DFSG#10, not its literal text.
Did I say "all" some place, or anything like that?
> P
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:12:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:26:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The problem, here, is that "GPL" really represents a class of licenses.
> > > That class includes a [currently empty] set of licenses which prevent
> > > distribution
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:26:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The problem, here, is that "GPL" really represents a class of licenses.
> > That class includes a [currently empty] set of licenses which prevent
> > distribution in certain countries. That set is non-free, but that
> > doesn't mak
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:59:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> > documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement
> > in "advertising materia
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:26:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem, here, is that "GPL" really represents a class of licenses.
> That class includes a [currently empty] set of licenses which prevent
> distribution in certain countries. That set is non-free, but that
> doesn't make the GPL
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
> > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> So, to be clear, y
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
> the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
So, to be clear, you're claiming that Don, Steve and Branden are misinterpreting
the DFSG
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
> > action taken not involving the covered work?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:23:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> How about:
>
> 10. The following are examples of free software licenses, in accordance
> to these Guidelines, and those [[Guidelines?]] shouldn't ever be
> interpreted in a way that does conflict with said examples being
> consid
@ 25/05/2004 08:54 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as
such from the document.
Or for adding a constraint that there be no explicit statement
restricting
distribu
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as
> such from the document.
Or for adding a constraint that there be no explicit statement restricting
distribution to any countries.
The problem with striking
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 07:48:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> >IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal*
> >proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits.
>
> Amendment VII
>
> In suits at common law, where t
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement
> in "advertising materials".
>
> Both could be wholly independently copyright works, and it is
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:45:40PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Gah. I really have to read more carefully. I read the license again,
> and it says that you have to sue a Contributor or sue about a patent
> related to the Program. So if SCO had distributed stuff under the IBM
> CPL,
They may ve
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
> >>software.
> >That might make it incomp
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:18:17PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> > > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting
> > > litigation."
> > >
>
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:39:16AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Don't forget SAMBA - it's a reverse-engineer of one of the key
> intellectual properties of one of the richest, and most sue-happy
> companies in the entire world. If Microsoft could sue the SAMBA team
> (and therefore Debian) over
I'm only going to comment where I disagree with or want to amplify Mr.
Nerode.
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:36:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Such reproduction must be accompanied by the following credit
> > line: "Reprinted by permission from International Business
> > Ma
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:43:00AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> The mysql folks are preparing 0.2 of their FLOSS exception. The
> current draft can be seen here:
>
> http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/getfile/licensing/FLOSS-exception.txt?v=1.4
MySQL FLOSS License Exception
The MySQL AB
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 02:24:41AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2004, at 18:36, Lewis Jardine wrote:
>
> >8 bears a lot of resemblance to "don't break the law" clauses
>
> IMO, "Mexicans can't distribute this software" isn't free, even if its
> part of the GPL.
Let's not get
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:40:17PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think you're probably right that this option, if exercised, would
> > be non-free. However, I have never seen anyone exercise this
> > particular option -- I had even forgotten it was
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:58:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (To be clear, the "obnoxious advertising clause" is a different issue.
> All we're talking about here is "the following acknowledgement", which
> is used in many more licenses than the 4-clause BSD, often in much less
> obnoxious ways
26 matches
Mail list logo
