On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Notice those have a special exception in the DFSG -- such impositions
> > are non-free in general, but as a particular exception, patch clauses
> > are Debian-Free.
>
> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle aga
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello debian-legal.
>
> 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
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, analysing licences out of context is no use to debian
> (does not get more software in the archive) or to the licensors (if
> their software is not trying to get into debian). The only case when
> it is useful is if this list is asked for comments
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tests are only for testing, not for stretching as much as we can: "but he
> >can just ignore the license. If he's a dissident it's not like he's not
> >breaking any law". Oh, yes, but that's what the dissident
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
> >
> > We accept this as free for patch clauses.
>
> Notice those ha
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>Copyleft is merely one facet of free software, but it's notable that it
>>>/does/ restrict user's freedoms (the freedom to distribute without
>>>source) in order to ensure that other users are free to rece
> On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
> > where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
> > and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
> > venue c
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:09:11PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> Jabberd2 is indeed licensed under the GPLv2, but the concern I have is
> over the various linkings of the package. The packages depended on by
> the various versions of the Jabberd2 builds are:
>
>libc6
>libidn11
>lib
Steve Langasek wrote:
> If "the mplayer upstream developers are controlled by evil alien
> cephalopods" is a procedurally valid reason to keep a package out of
> Debian, than so is the Chinese dissident test.
I strongly hope that that is not the only reason MPlayer has not been
accepted into Debia
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
> >| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
>
> Did they really issue a licence requi
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Roll up! Roll up! Sniper rifles for every
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
> >> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
> >> anyone else's opinion.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:17:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright
> holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How
Any and all fields of endeavour, depending on the licensor's mood. It can
even cha
On 2004-07-14 22:31:12 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] in that case it seems (at least to me) a bit weird
if we focused on *one* particular package, rather than on the license
L
itself.
If we can find a typical case, there might be little practical
difference. It just
On 2004-07-14 21:19:33 +0100 Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, I encouraged summarizing and
documenting the findings of -legal about licenses [...]
Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
review of licenses" suggeste
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:48:53PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 pack
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
> I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
> What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
>
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
H
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
>>
>> Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us t
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
>> >> possib
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:37:46 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > We must also collect some sort of license database, so as we can say
> > "this package is solely under the L license, hence it cannot be
> > DFSG-free for sure".
>
> What does this do that a database of summaries indexed by licence
> wouldn't?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:45:02PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
> I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
> What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, MIT, usual stack.
> How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
> rights in
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:24:14 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone
> > > packaged any of the free IWADs?
> >
>
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in documentation?
mike
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040714 19:01]:
> Nor does the QPL. It only allows distribution of binaries if you provide
> source upstream - it doesn't require the source to be distributed
> otherwise. The only difference between the QPL and the GPL in this
> respect is who the source is
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
>> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of fun
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
> >> possible to provide those modifications to the general pu
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]:
> Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up
> their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are
> appli
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]:
> IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
> formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I
suggested that -legal should en
R at es - are rising! Act now and lock in these l
ow rat
e s.C a sh out 10o % of your home. Quickly get c a
sh in 5 days.
Zero income documentation and No F IC0 scoring.
Take advantagHe
today P
ifcaip? mjrddzg wavxzvtl? Ohccdb nvvnswa, ngbbft zyreh
Ukpmfb qgjqwya - xiyug ofctbx? pnrvu
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
>> possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
>> being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the diss
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
> We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe e
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> The Skype Software and the Services are not intended for use by or
> availability to persons under the age limit of any jurisdiction
> which restricts the use of Internet-based applications and services
> according to age. IF YOU RESIDE IN SUCH A JURISD
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
> both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
>
> GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the
> recipient. You claim this is not a fee.
>
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
>anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
>distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
>network, but to contact the author,
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
>>> in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
>>
>>You should not need a technical
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
>> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
>> anyone else's opinion.
>
>We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't! That is an intrins
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
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 for those contribut
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
> possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
> being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than the
> GPL's provisions.
The dissident tes
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
>> in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
>
>You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
We accept this as f
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
I'm not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
> > provide. There's a practical dif
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
>
> Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
> non-free licenses for free ones. The p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
> worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it,
> since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
> package. And i wonder if it will co
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>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 sending source mo
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> 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 su
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
> choice of *law* clause looks like this:
> "This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California."
>
> A choice of venue clause does somethin
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 effectively arbitrary - they haven't bee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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. Oth
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > > browsers *ot
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a
> > narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
> > legal sense - it's written
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an
>>> attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Summaries hereto seem to restate views
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Consider also the case of a script that says "Edit the variables at the
>>top to customize for your site." (or any program who's configuration
>>file is covered under the same license as the rest of the software).
>>Should I be req
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
>>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
>>allowing termination at any time according to the author's m
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 h
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
>>Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
>>cause your license to terminate.
>
> What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
> practice?
Because it only terminates if you refust to comply with it, o
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 po
Here's a recap of one point in subthread:
Branden:
> > > > > > > > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my
> > > > > > > > opinion. "The license may not require a royalty
> > > > > > > > or other fee for such sale." It does not seem
> > > > > > > > reasonable to me to assume that the li
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
>> >
>> >Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
>> >anot
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I'm not sure what you refer to as notification, but if it's writing an
> email to them, that shouldn't be a problem since contacting the author
> is part of the packaging process in any case.
Each mirror admin would have to contact them individually because most
mirrors are no
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:41:31PM -0700, 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
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring hammering their web server?
I don't think it's practical to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:20:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Øystein Gisnås:
>
> > I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
> > package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
> > non-free section.
>
> This is from their web site:
>
> | (b) You
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:26:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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 o
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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 w
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
> >
> >Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
> >another.
>
> Which of these are patent infringement
> > You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
> > park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
> > suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
>
> We don't seem to fear the laughter of others when it comes to AMD64
> support.
Just a guess here
* Branden Robinson:
> Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
> cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
* Branden Robinson:
> Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
software without reason. I doubt that the test du jour can
On 2004-07-14 08:40:47 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] i know i will again get flamed for this. Especially the
way Overfiend and co have treatened me in the past.
[...] and i fear that a solution to this will happen days before the
sarge release, and i asked to take actions,
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
> package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
> non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the conditions
| that you (i) do n
SKYPE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This End User License Agreement ("Agreement") constitutes a valid and
binding agreement between Skype Software S.A. ("Skype") and you
("you," or "your") for the use of the Skype Software, Network and
Services, as those terms are d
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sean Kellogg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040713 10:55]:
> > With great respect to the 95% of the world population that does not live
> > within the US... the great majority of the world does operate under laws
> > derived from the common law system, which is embodied within the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
>to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
>
>Interestingly, the new version of the Social Contract[1] seems to give us
>less latitude than the or
On 2004-07-14 04:39:29 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Having a general case
to work from seems superior than working from just another package
summary, which may have various special-case differences of its own.
In reality, I suspect that the separate license analysis app
Branden Robinson <[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 l
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
>> perspective.
>
>I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
>
>"Whosoever compares one's opp
On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you are going to ignore constant factors, then you might
as well say that both approaches will require O(n) summaries.
As far as I can tell, -legal only gets asked about a few packages
under any licence, so the appeal t
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
>allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
Why not? Again, what practical diffe
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 23:05:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can
>> avoid
>> this by releasing the code to the general public. [...]
>
>Can 6c be avoided entirely by the simple hack of
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
Hi,
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
As of this license, modification is not allowed. How is modification
to be interpreted. Can, for example, .dekstop files be modified? What
abo
On 2004-07-14 03:12:27 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The DFSG FAQ does
partially address this issue for the most widely-referenced issues,
but
slightly less common issues often receive a "go read the archives"
response, which is sometimes harsher than necessary.
Both the FA
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Ok. Why do we consider this worse than the GPL's requirement that source
>> be distributed with binaries? A pragmatic disident isn't going to hand
>> out source to people that he wants to run the software - there's more of
>> a ris
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, 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, ye
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:05:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
>> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
>
>It's a restriction whose benefits to free software are believe
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The GPL makes it illegal for me to provide copies of GPLed source to
>> others in hostile patent environments. That's certainly hurting people
>> we want to care about.
>
>In that circumstance, *patents* are hurting people, not the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, 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
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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:
> >>There's far too much navel-gazing going on here...
> >
> >I don't think that observation helps.
>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
> through various "Tests". Some of them make sense, some of them are
> just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
> specific software!). The
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, 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
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
"Whosoever compares one's opposition in a discussion to indulging in
masturbatio
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, 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? T
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
This simply isn't how some people in the Project think.
The alternative approach is to assume that anything is DFSG-free until proven
otherwise. Historical evidence shows that m
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
> > browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
>
> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:49:03AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
> Okay, I'm forwarding what Jesse and BestPractical's lawyer have put
> together as a replacement appendage to the GPL in their licence.
[...]
> The new version:
>
> | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone packaged
> > any of the free IWADs?
>
> I really don't know.
> Perhaps no DD has enough time to package two fi
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:08:06AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I think every program in Debian is held to the standard of being "useful".
Please, s/is held/should be held/.
If you're like me, you should fear the counterexamples that could be
brought to the fore.
--
G. Branden Robinson
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
