Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>>>requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>>
>>It has an "archive all
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>* The GPL's copyleft hinders people who want to write GPL-incompatible
>>software based on the GPLed software. In the vast majority of cases,
>>this consists of people who want to write proprietary software.
>
> The GPL makes it
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 02:17:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't seem
>>> like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common.
>>
>> That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>a more carefully written requirement that source must be distributed
>>and freedoms given to the *users* of a piece of software still seems
>>reasonable to me.
>
> I want to think it is reasonable as well, but I haven't yet been
Sven Luther wrote:
> I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL
> is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution
> to it when time permits, and upstream has also agreed to it in
> principle, so this should be solved before the now imminent (wha
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-13 21:39:31 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Focussing on packages only would require too many analyses,
>> indeed.
>
> Are you claiming that "this package fails to follow for the same reasons
> as that one" requires more analyses than analy
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>"The opinions of debian-legal" consist of the opinions of all those
>>>developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
>>>a closed list. If the opinions of some developers div
On 2004-07-14 02:17:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't
seem
like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common.
That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if necesary,
package summaries t
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>"The opinions of debian-legal" consist of the opinions of all those
>>developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
>>a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from the
>>opinions on d
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> a more carefully written requirement that source must be distributed
> and freedoms given to the *users* of a piece of software still seems
> reasonable to me.
I want to think it is reasonable as well, but I haven't yet been able
to articulate a method o
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 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
MJ Ray wrote:
> Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't seem
> like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common.
That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if necesary,
package summaries that reference the relevant license summary and add
anything specific to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:32:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>* It singles out a particular package, which I believe will raise _more_
>>accusations of vigilante license analysis, not less.
>>
>>* Analyzing the license with a particular package in mind may cause a
>>sum
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:51:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It's a restriction whose benefits to free software are believed to outweigh
> the costs. Of course, this is a judgement call. The alternative to being
[...]
> "do two laps around the block before distributing"
I think the benefits
On 2004-07-14 00:21:30 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] RMS has claimed that failing to comply with the GPL means
that your license is effectively terminated, even if you cease doing
so.
Even an accidental breach of the GPL could result in the copyright
holder contending
On 2004-07-14 00:32:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
2) The first sentence clearly states the full name of the licence,
the
version number and any software packaged or ITP'd for debian that is
under that licence, with links as appropriate.
While I do agree tha
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:09:00AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Can 6c be avoided entirely by the simple hack of a momentary general
> public release? I'll be surprised if that is the conclusion,
> especially given the annotations at
> http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl-annotated.html
I certainly
On 2004-07-13 21:39:31 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I agree. Focussing on packages only would require too many analyses,
indeed.
Are you claiming that "this package fails to follow for the same
reasons as that one" requires more analyses than analysing the licence
and the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:32:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> * It singles out a particular package, which I believe will raise _more_
> accusations of vigilante license analysis, not less.
>
> * Analyzing the license with a particular package in mind may cause a
> summary to only be valid for
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
> obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
> we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
> patent suits hangin
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:48:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
> modifications; the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
> rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications. You're not
> providing argumen
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:57:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Dictator Test goes well beyond DFSG. DFSG clause 1 merely says
> that there is no fee or payment for the software. Nothing in DFSG says
> that the license must make no requirements at all. The Dictator
> Test is a stronger
On 2004-07-13 23:05:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of
copyright"
requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous,
IMO.
As I said elsewhere, I'm unconv
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:05:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >"Send it to a third party" and "reveal your identity" are just as readily
> >read as non-free from DFSG#1 as "pet a cat" and "distribution only on CD".
> >If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
>
I'm wondering if any of the frequent -legal posters would mind helping
with a review of my proposed Jabberd2 packages. There was some concern
over the original package and the fact that a GPL'd work was linked
against OpenSSL. I understand this concern and the upstream author has
been very cooper
On 2004-07-13 22:39:36 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] I still suspect that modifications are of sufficient value to
be regarded as a fee.
The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is
in a
narrow legal sense.
T
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm arguing that I don't believe them to be obviously non-DFSG-free,
>> which is not the same thing.
>
>It seems so obvious and self-evident to me that it's actually difficult
>for me to ar
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition, there seems to be a general consensus in Debian *against*
> the Dictator Test. Nobody except me to mind that CA certificates come
> with a lot of obnoxious licensing conditions (if we have a license to
> distribute them at all).
>
Just so
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
> distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
> binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different
> license), and this license took tho
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> perspective. We should be worried about freedom because it has real,
> practical effects on what people can do with the software we ship.
> Theoretical limitations that have no rea
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 jus
MJ Ray wrote:
> 2) The first sentence clearly states the full name of the licence, the
> version number and any software packaged or ITP'd for debian that is
> under that licence, with links as appropriate.
While I do agree that debian-legal should not be reviewing licenses
except in the context o
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Why is it necessary for a free software license to support certain
>> business models, especially when (say) the GPL prevents certain other
>> business models?
>
>The restriction in the GPL prevents you from taking away the rights
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The new submission paragraph is triggered "[b]y intentionally
> submitting any modifications... to Best Practical Solutions." I
> suppose it comes into force by a programmer reading it and sending the
> code to Best Practical anyway.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
> >> requirements results in you no longer bei
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(DFSG 4 against everything else)
>As for consistency, I believe it's DFSG#4 that's inconsistent with the rest
>of the DFSG, not our interpretation of the rest. (We probably disagree here.)
On the other hand, I see DFSG#4 as indicating that we're willing
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>
>It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expi
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"The opinions of debian-legal" consist of the opinions of all those
>developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
>a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from the
>opinions on debian-legal, then those develop
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
>> going to fly with a wider audience.
>
>Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice on that
>aspect yet? I still
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe the situation in the Dissident test is that the laws of the
> totalitarian government are irrelevant. The Dissident test triggers if,
> when the dissident finally leaves the jurisdiction of the totalitarian
> government, some copyright holder can say
Raul Miller wrote:
> How does this sound:
>
>Unnecessary Burden Test
>
>The license shouldn't place special requirements on authors of changes.
>Seemingly trivial requirements might require a month out of the
>author's life, or more, in situations that are not rare enough, such
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
> In
> http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20030310.011933.4c275bbf.html
> for example, this test was applied (in effect) to a situation
> confronting the Affero license.
I would like to voice my opinion at this point that while the Affero
license was certainly non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Consider someone writing Free Software under a contract with a
>>particular business. (This is a common business model for Free
>>Software.) The contractor is then distributing the software to that
>>business (assuming that the contractor exclude
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:44:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Stribblehill writes:
>> > | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
>> > | derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
>> > | Tracker, to Best Practi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:24:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The upstream who wants to use the QPL to prevent forking fails to
> understand the license he's placed his software under. That's entirely
> not our problem. Patch clauses make it harder to engage in certain
> activities but don't u
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:29:22 +0530 Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
[...]
> > As you can read elsewhere, I am not convinced that debian-legal is
> > equipped or wise to try to analyse licences in abstract.
>
> I'm afraid that this list will have to
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> What's silly or unrealistic about it? The totalitarian state in
>> question is the People's Republic of China. The original name of this
>> test is the "Chinese Dissident" test.
>
>I find i
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> protected. In the past, we have compromised in order to be able to
>> distribute software that we thought was "free enough" - DFSG 4 is a good
>> example of this. Those active on debian-leg
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>> difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
>
>It makes a huge difference. They can get access to much more so
On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
going to fly with a wider audience.
Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice on that
aspect yet? I still suspect that modifications are of suffici
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 1) The FSF list the QPL as a free software license, despite it being in
> violation of "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and
> use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
> that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you s
On 2004-07-13 20:59:07 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please don't send me provate correspondance about public matters then,
There seemed little reason to point out your stupidity in public, but
you think otherwise. Fine. It's still not good to repost private to
public.
--
MJR/
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of copyright"
requirement (QPL#6 has no
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>I just don't find "silent majority" arguments interesting. This isn't a
>>private mailing list; if you disagree, argue your position, instead of
>>arguing that the conclusions of the list are meaningless.
>
> I have a certain amount of frustration a
Joey Hess wrote:
> > Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
> > argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
> > well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
> > the message you replied to!
>
> I consider myself a rea
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I find it gross that it was suddenly renamed, losing much of its
> meaning for false "political correctness". It'd be nice if the FAQ
> would correct this.
There was some discussion originally about this, and it was decided to
make the test broader than
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > [If you could also provide a cite to the 2nd Restatement of
> > Contracts, that would also be appreciated. I'm not quite sure
> > where it falls into the context of US legislation or case laws.]
>
> the restatements are an effort by the American Legal I
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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 fo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:15:31PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
> > the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
> > the memorabl
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
> >patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
> >there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination?
>
> Any situation whi
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
>> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
>> -- the current situation is not tenable for t
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I have a certain amount of frustration at the fact that people
> continually assert that the freedom of someone on a desert island to be
> able to distribute the software is a fundamental one that must be
Then don't argue that debi
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:18, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. That's the sort of conclusion I'm coming to. If it /is/ actually
> > effectively another criterion, then the right way to go about it is by
> > changing the DFSG. I don't think it real
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:44:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Stribblehill writes:
> > | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
> > | derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
> > | Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confi
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>
>It's a much more onerous requirement: it has the same effect, that you
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
> -- the current situation is not tenable for the years to come. It's
> not something anybody sho
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that the "dissident test" is just a weird way of saying
>>something like:
>>
>>DFSG 11. Licence Must Not Invade Privacy of Individuals or Groups
>
> Right. That's the sort of conclusion
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, "if you modify
>>this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible".
>>It wouldn't fail the desert island test ("as soon as possible" might easily
>>mean "never") but
Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the intent behind the dissident test is not to protect you from
>oppresive governments; it is to check whether the license forces you to
>sacrifice your privacy.
But /why/? The dissident test suggests that we consider the case of a
dissident being
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
> license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
> good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
> free.
The patent non-polic
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:15:31PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
> the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
> the memorable but silly "dissident" example.
What's silly or unrealistic about it? T
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems to me that the "dissident test" is just a weird way of saying
>something like:
>
>DFSG 11. Licence Must Not Invade Privacy of Individuals or Groups
Right. That's the sort of conclusion I'm coming to. If it /is/ actually
effectively another
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 15:19:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribía:
> I'm also unconvinced by these examples. The first sounds like "A free
> software license should allow for small groups to avoid lawsuits while
> breaking the law", and the GPL can damage a wide range of perfectly
> legal
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for
>> users than
Josh Triplett wrote:
>We do not wish for our user's freedoms to be revokable, and we do not
>accept licenses that allow anyone to do so. However, *no matter what
>the Free Software license says*, a third-party patent holder can always
>sweep in and use their patents to prevent distribution. This
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> >The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
> >the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
> >the memorable but silly "dissident" example. A realistic example might
> >be a gr
Josh Triplett wrote:
>In this situation, either MP3 decoders should be removed, or if not,
>then MP3 *en*coders should be packaged as well, since there does not
>appear to be any distinction between the two except for the amount of
>the royalties.
There has been active enforcement against mp3 enc
Josh Triplett wrote:
>Consider someone writing Free Software under a contract with a
>particular business. (This is a common business model for Free
>Software.) The contractor is then distributing the software to that
>business (assuming that the contractor excluded work-for-hire in the
>contrac
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>
>>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
>>
>>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
>>patented software, then it's non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplet wrote:
>
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>>>may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>>>software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>>>othe
Frank Küster wrote:
> Sorting this out and contacting all upstream authors would take a hell
> lot of time. Asking them to upload a new version to CTAN instead of
> sending us a mail, because such a mail would be problematic wrt to DFSG
> clause 8, would take even more time. So much time that we wi
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>>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
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-11 10:59:22 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it cannot be
>> in main, will some situation arise where application X, also solely
>> under QPL can be in main?
>
> No, but it would be possible that QPL-like +extras could be. Having a
> checklist QPL=>no
Florian Weimer wrote:
> For another example, look at copyleft licenses in general. The
> copyright holder detests the current state of copyright law and tries
> to work around it, using copyright law itself to implement something
> which goes (at first glance) directly against the spirit of copyri
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>>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
>>>ren
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
>the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
>the memorable but silly "dissident" example. A realistic example might
>be a group of people doing something that someone else mi
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:31, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But compare it to the BSD license. I can provide BSD-licensed binaries
> > without the requirement to provide source. Compared to that, the GPL
> > imposes a fee upon me.
>
> I don't see
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
> >be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
> >Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
>
> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for s
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
>>> distribute source alongside them is a fee. It's not necessarily one that
>>> applies to Debian, but it'
Andrew Stribblehill writes:
[snip]
> The new version:
>
> | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
> | derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
> | Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the
> | copyright holder f
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
>> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
>> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
>
>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
>patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
>there
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
> any time a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>This argument could be used for a huge number of licenses that go through
>this list, claiming that every decision more "fuzzy" than "this program
>may not be used commercially" should be discussed on debian-devel or
>some other inappropriate mailing list (or, even more unrea
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different
set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
>> Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
>> of circumstances)?
>
>Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement (or lack the
Josh Triplet wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>> other acceptable? The user is equall
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
>> distribute source alongside them is a fee. It's not necessarily one that
>> applies to Debian, but it's one that applies to our users.
>
>No, because you
* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040712 21:15]:
> > 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 prote
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
