On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 22:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:02:40AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the
> > > hostile
> > > response from some of the
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:27:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 06:05:24 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
> > > don't*depend* on non-free pa
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett
Branden> wrote:
>> Side note: while researching this further, I discovered that
>> the xinetd license requires keeping the original version number
>>
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips
Branden> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
> that will load and display an "insert ROM" image (eg. NES, SNES), and
> one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
> anything at all (eg. PSX BI
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 06:05:24 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
> > don't*depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a
> > completely different matter.
>
> I
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:22:09PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
> > TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
> > the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
Hi,
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:57, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > [...] The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that
> > can't be run with free Java implementations.
>
> This is good news. Well done to GNOME.
Note
Norton AntiVirus ha trovato un virus in un allegato inviato da
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org) a claudio.
Per garantire che i destinatari possano utilizzare i file inviati, eseguire una
scansione dei virus, ripulire eventuali file infetti e inviare di nuovo
l'allegato.
Allegato: release_inje
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:54:29AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040706 15:55]:
> > My understanding is that the last known patent on LZW compression held
> > by Unisys, in Canada, expires tomorrow, July 7th 2004. I plan to ask my
> > sponsor, Bas Zoetekouw,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>The license also contains many clauses that suggest a belief that the
>>license controls _use_ of the software, which has no backing in (US, at
>>least) copyright law. While these cla
Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
> applicable laws.
>
> License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is,
> they
On 2004-07-07 12:42:22 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
>> person.
>> More news later, hopefully.
[...]
> Has there been any progress on this?
Not mu
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 13:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm sorry no one has replied to you before now. I suspect one reason may
> have been that your questions are a bit confusing.
(the question is no longer of "real" interest, since the author of
revelation does not want to use the icon in quest
On 2004-07-07 11:04:33 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Dictator Test: [...]
If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP.
Please connect this to specific DFSG if possible. Of course, the FAQ
notes that not everything failing a common test is necessarily not
free, s
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:02:40AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the hostile
> > response from some of the Debian kernel maintainers and the dead silence
> > from upstream.
>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it with
> the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge for
> that, then that's good enough.
I continue to assert that this exception is mor
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
> TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
> the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
> found.
>
> My thinking is that we
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Any law or
> > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be
> > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License.
> What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it.
It's malevolent as
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:17:01PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at
> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> Ah, I forgot that answer in the DFSG-FAQ...
> So my interpretation of DFSG#5
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
> applicable laws.
>
> License grantors do not have a priva
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dict
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
> person. More news later, hopefully.
I'm still catching up on the list, so I may have missed your followup to
this (though there was none to this message)...
Has there be
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:55:44AM +, Stefan Völkel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was told to post my question on d-legal, please CC me as I am not
> subscribed.
I'm sorry no one has replied to you before now. I suspect one reason may
have been that your questions are a bit confusing.
> > is there
> > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications
> > have value".
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection.
I do.
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on tha
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:20:13PM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> >
> > It seems kind of strange to me and some other debian-legal people that a
> > package was kept out of main because the data files it uses are
> > non-free. Even for
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:48:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Dear subset of debian-legal contributors,
>
> Please try to be a bit more constructive when working with upstream
> developers.
Michael Poole is not a Debian Developer.
I'm prepared to draft and use a "debian-legal repudiation message" t
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:02:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > Nintendo are the only ones I'm aware of that try to pretend console
> > emulators aren't legal (sheer sophistry though; they claim outright
> > "this thing is illegal b
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:03:29PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Lastly, I guess there's just something really violating about thinking
> that Debian is judging the data I have, or could have, on my hard drive.
> So I'm not working with Free data. So what? Mind your own beeswax,
> Debian.
If you
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they don't
> *depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely
> different matter.
I don't think we should be putting useless software in our archive, let
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Hmm. I wonder if other emulators have the same problems as the atari800
> emulator. From the description:
>
> "The Atari Operating System ROMs are not available with this package,
> due to copyright. You'll have to either make c
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:50:53AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
> important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have happened in the first
> place. I myself don't really give a rip either way where the emulators end
> up,
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 06:47:53PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:17, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
>
> > Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
> > into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
> > commercial, non-free (a
[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
> > it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:00:36AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> I'm also not in favor of this tacit "assume we aren't violating the
> intent of the license when we're clearly violating the letter of it,
> unless we find out otherwise" precedent that's being set by this; we
> didn't accept it for K
Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actio
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:40:01AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
> >> Test"
> >> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
> >> holder
> >> d
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
> >otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
>
> I think this would actually bring de
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:13:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> "Autocrat" and "dictator" are roughly synonymous and just refer to
> systems of government where all power stems from a single individual;
> the UK was an autocracy for much of its history without individual
> freedom being signific
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
> > > # extensions to this work
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
> ...
> > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. "The license
> > may not require a roya
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040706 15:55]:
> My understanding is that the last known patent on LZW compression held
> by Unisys, in Canada, expires tomorrow, July 7th 2004. I plan to ask my
> sponsor, Bas Zoetekouw, to upload a version of cernlib with compressed
> GIF creation support
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> One of the goals was to create a license which is compatible with
> french law. (It isn't clear whether the GPL is.)
Presumably you're obliquely invoking droit d'auteur as the reason for
incompatibility; ideally the vagaries of one locality's legal syst
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The license also contains many clauses that suggest a belief that the
> license controls _use_ of the software, which has no backing in (US, at
> least) copyright law. While these clauses do not seem to be non-fr
44 matches
Mail list logo
