Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> > the change author can receive any requests.
>From the DFSG FAQ:
> < This holds even if such requirements are only "upon request", as the
> < castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:25:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical
> > examples
> > of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well.
>
> I'll
On 2004-07-10 00:47:24 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"On request" doesn't seem to create any problems for the dissident
test.
For the request to be made, the dissident must already be known.
Nothing says it should be an individual request, or time-limited, or
anything. I'm not
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old ho
On 2004-07-10 00:24:46 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Er, well, whether and how it fails a clause of the DFSG depends
[...] I would expect most failures
of the Dictator Test to violate DFSG 1.
Does that help any?
Yes, thanks. I think it's worth including that in the FAQ s
Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
into account a bit. I've a few comments...
On 2004-07-09 22:59:18 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
* Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
public to be provided to the original
Raul Miller wrote:
> Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> the change author can receive any requests.
>From the DFSG FAQ:
> This holds even if such requirements are only "upon request", as the
> castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send the
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:47:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> "On request" doesn't seem to create any problems for the dissident test.
> For the request to be made, the dissident must already be known.
Advertise on television, requesting all such code. If the dissident watches
television, he's a
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> "On request" doesn't seem to create any problems for the dissident
> test. For the request to be made, the dissident must already be
> known.
Not necessarily. Consider what would occur if the author spammed the
known universe requesting changes.
> Likewi
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
> public to be provided to the original developer on request. This
> requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see
> sections 9a, 9b, a
> > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
> > on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
> can make them?
Because potential complexity of the boundaries
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:59:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit
> code reuse in other projects?
The GPL does prohibit code reuse in other projects under certain conditions.
Patch clauses are at least one case in which
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical examples
> of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well.
I'll try and think of some.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:25:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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
> note
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 03:52:15PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> Also, note that at least Australia and England extend copyright protection
> to "industrious collections" (i.e., 'sweat of the brow' databases such as
> white pages).
Has anyone bothered to copyright large prime numbers discovered
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> This seems like a GPL violation.
I disagree, and concur with Andreas Metzler's and Glenn Maynard's
reasoning. I believe you are misinterpreting clause 2b) of the GNU GPL.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publis
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:31:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> To be clear: I was soliciting information, not hustling for votes.
[...]
> It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal as
> an argument.
Sorry; the list gets so contentious sometimes that I guess I see
bar
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:10:59PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Francesco Poli 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
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >>I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
> >>that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
> >>software to run.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A *lot* of old ho
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 06:15:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long
> enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think
> of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in
> some important way.
I
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:40:57AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I guess if a licence agreement requires one of those to be formed,
> then either someone who understands those systems explains why it
> would not follow the guidelines, or Branden's proposed test needs
> limiting to licenses permitting a
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would be a
> conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone
> having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license,
> resulting in
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
> Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
> intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
> intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
> in consultation with Best
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:26:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> T
Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
Please note that until other debian-legal participants indicate their
position on this
severity 258497 wishlist
tags 258497 + moreinfo
thanks
also sprach Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.09.2322 +0200]:
> debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer
> refuses to move this package to non-free;
You are misrepresenting. I was not convinced by the debian-
tags 251983 + wontfix moreinfo
thanks
also sprach Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.09.2243 +0200]:
> Please remove libcwd from main and put it in non-free. I will
> request removal of this package if you do not.
As long as there is no official statement on the QPL, I will not
move th
On 2004-07-09 10:53:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Brian M. Carlson:
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution license.
The current version 2.0 of the Attribution Share-Alike license does
not
On 07.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi guys,
> Oddly, the version of the LPPL shipped in tetex-base[8] is still
> version 1.2,
>
Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it makes
sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package declares a dep
on 1.2 or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
|
| grep -rl "THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE" */copyright
| libqt3c102-mt/copyright
| libqt3-headers/copyright
| libqt3-mt-dev/copyright
| qt3-designer/copyright
| qt3-dev-tools/copyright
| qt3-doc/copyright
|
Not sure about the rest, bu
* Brian M. Carlson:
> Actually, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses from
> Creative Commons are not DFSG-free. See the summary on debian-legal
> [0].
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution lic
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
> As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
>
> "Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
> not DFSG-free."
>
> found on debian-legal
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg002
Hi,
thank you Branden for your comparison and all the work you folks put
into this issue!
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oddly, the version of the LPPL shipped in tetex-base[8] is still version
> 1.2, and a review of the tetex package changelog shows no new upstream
> release sin
As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
"Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
not DFSG-free."
found on debian-legal
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00259.html
Though this is considered as a free license by FSF not GPL Compatible
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments we
35 matches
Mail list logo
