MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-10 23:13:50 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, Debian logos should be DFSG-free. Their appropriate use should be
>> enforced via trademark laws, not copyright ones, if this is possible.
>
> Great. Please review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-le
Remco Seesink wrote:
> I want to advise a license for documentation, and know
> there are problems with the GFDL. So I thought of the
> Creative Commons Attribution license but that appears
> to have problems too.
>
> What documentation license can I advise?
>
> If more context needed, see below.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
>>> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
>>> the source code, a written of
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:57:33AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
> and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
> attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
> they're
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
>>least one Free document in the word processor's format,
>
> Except that in this case, new documents could be created with the word
> processor, so it would work without the document
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>>Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
>>players removed from Debian main?
>
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
> render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; y
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>>Matthew Palmer wrote:
>>>The litmus test here is "a significant amount of functionality", not
>>>"will refuse to work at all without it", although that's a fairly good
>>>description of a console without a ROM.
>>
>>Would one ROM cut it, then?
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hmmm. I'm not sure blanket acceptance of "closed-universe" projects is
> really a good idea. I'm not sure it serves our users very well, and I'm
> pretty confident it doesn't serve the Free Software community very well.
>
> At the same time, I'm struggling to determine
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that
>> GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
>
> I think restrospectively justifying a "Holier than Stallman" tag with
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:59:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not sure I buy this. Surely the GPL #7 effectively restricts the
>> scope of derived works I can make and distribute to those that don't
>> infringe upon actively enforced patents? Isn't that a more onerou
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
>> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
>> the source code, a written offer or alternatively information regarding
>> the w
Hello,
I want to advise a license for documentation, and know
there are problems with the GFDL. So I thought of the
Creative Commons Attribution license but that appears
to have problems too.
What documentation license can I advise?
If more context needed, see below.
Cheers,
Remco.
Begin forw
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
> > players removed from Debian main?
>
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
> render MP3 players useful with no non-
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 08:23:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free
> > Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that
> > he or she never received the corresponding copy
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Why should Debian wait for one such image to *be packaged* before
> > moving the viewer from contrib to main?
> Oh, it doesn't need to be packaged. If it is, however, it proves that
> such an image exists.
I'm glad to hear this: at l
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:46:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite
> sufficient to render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you
> can make your own MP3s.
Out of curiosity, is that different from the status of MPEG videos?
That i
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:25:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
> > > Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
> > > >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
> > > >happens to talk about it, he
On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
thread,
you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direc
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
permission to distribute.
>>>
>>> And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the
>>> grants of permission to modify?
>>
>> Fort
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>>That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>>of the s
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:40:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
>> 3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
>> combines with the fees of 6c and 3b t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>QPL just insists that the copyright holder can insist that the
>>modifier/ person who created a dependent work provide sources of _his_
>>work. Even if the new work is only depending on the QPL'ed
>>software. It need not be even a d
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 18:40:36 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't think you're making a viable argument.
>
> I was trying to summarise the argument as described to me. I think
> it's rude of you to ignore that and shoot the messenger. I said in the
> DWN-submitted
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>>> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
>>> permission to distribute.
>>
>> And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the
>> grants of permission to modify?
>
> Fortunately, this part is the core, and I was correct. Th
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ I've been watching the QPL discussion with some interest and, dare I
> say it, hilarity. This just has to be replied to... ]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>>
>>The problem comes from these three clauses:
>>
>> 3b. When modifica
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial
>> developer when I distribute to some third party.
>
> DFSG #1 does not talk about who receives the fee. If the license
> required to pay $1 to the receiver of each copy, this would clear
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
> isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
> coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
> that such a gedanken is protecting
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:40:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
> 3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
> combines with the fees of 6c and 3b to conflict with DFSG #3.
Huh? This is no diffe
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 08:49:41AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
>
> > The only reasons the LGPL is GPL-compatible are 1: the LGPL-to-GPL downgrade
> > clause (LGPL#3), and 2: the "operating system" exception (GPL#3), which is
> > irrelevant for Debian. A work under a modifi
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040712 20:25]:
> On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For example, we could create a separate archive for
> >documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
> >and non-free.
> Please explain how you would do t
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * MJ Ray:
>>> Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
>>> -project.
>> I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves changing
>> the Social Contract.
>
> So it's not t
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> the above paragraphs have little relevance to anyone in debian. The
> technical term for this condition is "silly".
This particular test is basically expressing the idea that individuals
shouldn't be compelled to distribute changes to individuals beyond t
On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray:
Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
-project.
I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves changing
the Social Contract.
So it's not the current situation then! Av
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:59:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >I believe the more reliable DFSG#3 is to the point. It requires the
> >right to make derived works--any derived works, not "derived works,
> >as long as you're willing to give the initial developer a copy".
>
> I'm not sure I buy
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There is an attempt to change the DFSG through various "Tests".
The tests themselves are not an attempt to change the DFSG, since
(quite clearly) they fail to actually do so.[1] Their purpose is to allow
the rights guaranteed by the DFSG to be confirmed
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, we could create a separate archive for
>> documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
>> and non-free.
>
> Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread
On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, we could create a separate archive for
documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
and non-free.
Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
-project.
--
MJR/
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
>> Software Foundation.
>
> That part seems inevitable in the current situation.
No, it's not, we can avoid that even if we can't reach an
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Michael Poole:
>
>> DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
>> terminate the license unilaterally.
>
> Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
> but I can't find one.
#1 (Free Redistribution) and #5 (No Discrimination A
MJ Ray wrote:
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
> otherw
On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
Software Foundation.
That part seems inevitable in the current situation. FSF does not
claim that FDL'd works are free software. That said, FDL is probab
* Michael Poole:
> DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
> terminate the license unilaterally.
Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
but I can't find one.
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] In fact, the DFSG do not
>> deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
>
> Are you sure? Really sure?
Yes, I checked it again. 8-)
> Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't see
Michael Poole wrote:
>The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
>purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
>to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
>allow the author to terminate the license unilaterally. On the other
>hand
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
> DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
> pos
* Andreas Barth:
> Also, the distinction between free and non-free is broken by this. If
> even acceptable restrictions are considered non-free, than DFSG-free
> is no longer an helpful guide for our users and also not for ourself.
Yes, this is a very valid point. If more and more packages are p
On 2004-07-12 17:11:43 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
possible risk when the licence is being discussed and leave it at
that?
I'm happy with that, in general. Is this acceptable for a licence
already covering
On 2004-07-12 17:39:18 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not really, since upstream will have as much trouble requesting the
modifications, or even knowing about them, won't they ? :)))
Nothing says it should be an individual request, or time-limited, or
anything. I'm not sure whe
Matthew Garrett writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>
>>"DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
>>isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily." --
>>Bruce Perens, "Is Your Software In Danger of Termination?" at
>>http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
>
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040712 18:10]:
> There does seem to be a lot of effort being put into inventing
> extremely contrived arguments in -legal these days to make various
> licenses look non-free. At the current rate, it won't be long before
> someone invents a reason to declare the
MJ Ray wrote:
>"DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
>isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily." --
>Bruce Perens, "Is Your Software In Danger of Termination?" at
>http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same pro
Hello
On 2004-07-12 Branden Robinson wrote:
> Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better
> move quickly to evaluate what's going on here.
Sorry, I mixed up -policy with -legal. But you guys do not need to do anything
at the moment. The CVS version of the licence has
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
> > Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
> > >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
> > >happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to distribute it
> > >before he's ready! Th
MJ Ray wrote:
>It was suggested to me that compelled contribution of copyrightable
>work to the upstream would probably be classed as consideration in
>England, although I've not been able to verify that. The suggestor is
>not a lawyer, but has studied contract law for another qualification,
>
Anyone knows about the legal status of libdvdcss? I've read in the
archive that there is very little chance for the ftpmasters to accept
this package due to their paranoia WRT the MPAA and such.
However, some proprietary distributions have started distributing it
without being sued.
Furthermore,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
> >How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
> >use, modify or distribute the software.
>
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to requir
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> >That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
> >First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
> >versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free
Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better
move quickly to evaluate what's going on here.
(I personally only have a vague recollection of the issue in question, and
would have to review bug logs/mailing list threads to get back up to
speed.)
Mr. Hammers, in the futur
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:29:01AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >>Package: ocaml
> >>Version: 3.07.2a-2
> >>Followup-For: Bug #227159
> >>
> >>
> >>The compilers are also di
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.12.1409 +0200]:
> IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about
> delegations, too.
Thanks Colin.
I would appreciate if this issue was left to myself. I am working
with the author through the problems and hope to get libcwd freed.
On 2004-07-12 16:37:33 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can -legal do anything apart from saying a `no'?
Yes, -legal can enumerate the problems.
So we need to look at the license, is it not?
I will not answer a negated question directly here. What you described
is not loo
MJ Ray said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:39:37AM +0100,:
> >I'm afraid that this list will have to do both - analyse licenses in
> >general, and also scturinise specific packages when brought to our
> >notice.
>
> Why?
>
> >In the specific case of licenses which are outright non-free
Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
> Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
>
> >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
> >happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to distribute it
> >before he's ready! This is no issue at all
On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] In fact, the DFSG do not
deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
Are you sure? Really sure? Can you explain why?
"DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:15:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
>>How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
>>use, modify or distribute the s
On 2004-07-12 15:43:55 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snort* This is just getting comical now. Since when is supplying a
copy of source considered a fee?
It was suggested to me that compelled contribution of copyrightable
work to the upstream would probably be classed as con
* MJ Ray:
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
> otherwise.
T
On 2004-07-12 15:53:45 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade or
suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from
-legal speak for themselves.
If there are that many, I guess a lot of these are either n
On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by a
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>
> Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>I know there are other packages under MPL, but if:
>
>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software. There's far too much
navel-g
[ I've been watching the QPL discussion with some interest and, dare I
say it, hilarity. This just has to be replied to... ]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>The problem comes from these three clauses:
>
> 3b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
> l
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any case, the attitude that "kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary
> thought" strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project
> went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our
> response
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
factual history. Cle
On 2004-07-12 05:26:00 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] If I remember correctly, implied
warranties are incurred by distribution, not by licensing, at least
in the
US. (Is this true in Britain as well?)
I'm not sure, but I believe they happen when any sale occurs or
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>>
>>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>
>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>> of the softwa
* Brian T. Sniffen:
> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
> of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
>> Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
>
> ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
> you mean BY-SA? T
I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
combines with the fees of 6c and 3b to conflict with DFSG #3.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
you mean BY-SA? That shares the troubl
On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Followup-For: Bug #227159
The compilers are also distributed under the QPL, which is
And ? What is the problem ? Even RMS and the FSF is not cl
Glenn Maynard writes:
> The only reasons the LGPL is GPL-compatible are 1: the LGPL-to-GPL downgrade
> clause (LGPL#3), and 2: the "operating system" exception (GPL#3), which is
> irrelevant for Debian. A work under a modified GPL would lose #1, as well,
> so it seems that the LGPL would be incom
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
>
> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment, which I think might
be Branden's aim.
I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never at
Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
like to propose replacing them with:
1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and invite further
di
Branden Robinson writes:
> If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free
> Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that
> he or she never received the corresponding copyright license?
Can you elaborate on the situation you have in mind?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> > decision lies with the archive maintainers.
>
> I see. Where are the archive maintainers' o
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> > work; see se
> 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.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Which is either really heavy, and
On 2004-07-12 10:48:57 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I mentioned on IRC, we shipped QT in main under the QPL before the
GPL was added. I don't think the above is a terribly convincing
argument. [...]
Given the apparent lack of comment either way, it seems null as data.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
>
> I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
> usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
> could be left out, and kept
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> s/^A /A free /
>
> Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there
> > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
> > point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:26:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Now, in the UK, can you agree to the license for purposes of the licensed
> activities *without* losing your right to sue regarding any statutory
> warranties which would cover fair dealing, library privilege, or other
> always-per
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
* Branden Robinson:
> In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another w
On 2004-07-12 09:18:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY SUBJECT SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER
EXCEPT
| UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.
(SGI's GLX license.)
Does such a wording really make diff
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
