> > [...] In other word, does the DFSG allows such thing?
>
> I think so in letter, especially given the LPPL's definitions, but it
> feels bad to obstruct people wanting to adapt the software to their
> needs. It would be good if Eitan could mark distributable comments and
> supply thos
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
> #244276 is a RC bug against a litteral program (tex4ht). The question is to
> know whether distributing a preprocessed source file is a source code
> obfuscation, and thus a obstruction to the source code modification or
> whatever.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:47:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 t
On 2004-07-16 00:32:58 +0100 Martin Quinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[Please keep the bug in CC for logging, as well as Eitan (upstream
author)]
Done.
[...] In other word, does the DFSG allows such thing?
I think so in letter, especially given the LPPL's definitions, but it
feels bad t
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 00:25 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Martin Quinson wrote:
> #244276 is a RC bug against a litteral program (tex4ht). The
> question is to know whether distributing a preprocessed source file
> is a source code obfuscation, and thus a obstruction to the source
> code modification or whatever. In other word, does t
On 2004-07-16 00:11:52 +0100 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time)
are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
Le
[Please keep the bug in CC for logging, as well as Eitan (upstream author)]
Hello,
#244276 is a RC bug against a litteral program (tex4ht). The question is to
know whether distributing a preprocessed source file is a source code
obfuscation, and thus a obstruction to the source code modification
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:02:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
> >> certain license provisions will result i
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:08:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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?
> >That is simply a restrictio
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
The plugins are actually a modified version of standalone applications,
so I'm
On 2004-07-15 13:19:07 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Find some arguments that
don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
than just handwave madly to convince me about the "fee" one) and I'll
listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am th
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
> > and that's what a choice
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT
> > IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*?
>
> Because it is actually taking away rights.
Still circular. How does this violate DFSG?
> > I think you are talk
> > [Personally, I think all of our "tests" should be explicitly tied to some
> > practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated
> > situations arise.]
>
> This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right
> to criticize the author, sue third p
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 requir
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
> Somebody pointed me that maybe I should remove all OpenSSL related
> code from the orig tarball. So, do you think this must be done ?
I'm not sure if that's ever been done for other packages missing an
OpenSSL exception that we don't link with OpenSSL.
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
>>>not be free.
>>
>> Really? Wow. That's insane.
>
>Merely internally consistent
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> >> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> >> I gave th
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 15:23, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> >> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> >> I gave them (under 3(c
Hello,
two months back, I sent a mail to the main middleman author (CC'ed to
this list) because middleman software license (GPL) conflicts with
OpenSSL (Apache-style) [1], and so middleman can't be accepted into
Debian. I asked him if he could add an exception to the GPL which allows
linking with
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
> >> technical awkwardnesses.
> >
> >Patch cla
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am th
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
>> directly
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is d
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Nathaneal Nerode writes:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
>>Many interpretations.
>>
>>> Those who
>>> actually end up making the decisions
>>RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
>>*no
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the "Open Use" logo; I'm not
>> going to worry about the other one).
>>
>> Copyright license:
>> "You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of
>> this logo."
>
> Good idea to make
Hello
Below you will find a copy a mail that I just got from the main MySQL licence
guy. I had a quick glance at the diff and it looks ok but I would sleep better
if you acknowledge this, too.
Background: Basically MySQL changed it's library licence to something
incompatible with the LGPL but wit
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
> >> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
> >
> > Which DFSG point?
>
> 3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived
>works, and must allow
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
>> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
>> modifications under the same license through which I received the
>> software
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
>> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
>
> Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modification
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
> modifications under the same license through which I received the
> software. The author used a license which gets him a lic
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the "Open Use" logo; I'm not going
> to worry about the other one).
>
> Copyright license:
> "You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of this
> logo."
Good idea to make "distribute modified versions" exp
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (und
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
>> > technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively
>>> guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the
>>> DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR
>>> and you convince
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modificat
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surely it's not the license that restricts the activities of the
>> dissident, it's the local authorities? If my government decrees that
>> anyone producing works that oblige source to be distributed with
>> bin
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>>> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
>>> co
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
> > technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch
> > clauses, somebody might read it a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The test itself, though, remains clear: Any requirement for sending
>>source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the
>>modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyon
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
>>
>> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
>>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
That's necessary for the recipient to have Freedom with respect to the
software -- otherwise he can't modify it to suit his purposes.
> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
>>> want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
>>> modification falls within this. Distribu
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
>>> original
>>> recipient (who I provided the software to) is mak
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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?
> >
> >That is simply a restriction on the allowed fo
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
> >
> >I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
> >covers. If yo
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
> >> certain license provisions will result in bad things happening
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
>>
>> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
>> distributed modifications.
>>
>> Why do we believe
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] For almost every license discussion
> > on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
> > does.
>
> I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't ha
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
>> original
>> recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
>> something that
>> I put effort in
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
>
> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
> upstream.
Why does that result in one being a fee a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference
>> to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
>
>I just explained to you how it makes a difference, as did several
>oth
Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and
the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using t
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
>
>That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
>you may distribute source
On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
distributed modifications.
Why do we believe in one of these but not the other?
The second loo
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The test itself, though, remains clear: Any requirement for sending
>source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the
>modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyond
>giving source to those who receive a copy of th
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
>> certain license provisions will result in bad things happening to the
>> dissident if he complies with them. I am
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
>> >would say "Get that program out!")
>
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You'd be going against
On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] For almost every license discussion
on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
does.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't have the tools
for analysing licences without applic
On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Distribution is no more of interest to the original developer than
modification. If I'm distributing to you, what business of the
developer's is it? [
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
> >would say "Get that program out!")
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You'd be going against Debian policy, then.
In what sense? We've d
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> 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.
>
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
>> technical awkwardnesses.
>
>Patch clauses are not a "minor technical awkwardnesses"; they are a major,
>onerous hu
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
>
>I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
>covers. If you can't even use it in those kinds of situations, then
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
> imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance o
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
>> modifications;
>Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
The context is entirely related to distribution. Yes, if I never
distribute modified GPLed co
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
>> want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
>> modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand,
>> is something that is of
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>> a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
>> contains a clause that explicitly allows for that to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 MP
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.
I would assume that if a licensor put suc
Nathaneal Nerode writes:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
>Many interpretations.
>
>> Those who
>> actually end up making the decisions
>RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
>agreed with, and FTPmaster
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.
>>
>>We've thought about it and discussed it;
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and
> cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1].
Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they
certainly are not delegates in their
MJ Ray wrote:
> In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
> general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
> anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
> here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
> currently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>> l
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> By replying to any messages in this thread, you agree to order me a pizza.
So, what's your address and what's your local pizza place? ;-)
> The above is merely a false statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> 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
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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 clear
Florian Weimer wrote:
> We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
> of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
> itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do li
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> 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
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
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 hanging over its head, and could become non-fre
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 thos
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 anyway? What practical benefit does this o
Sven Luther wrote:
> 6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
>
> So, if you make a release that is not general, but limited to a small
> group of people, then the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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
>>net
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that
>>are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that
>>change if you distribute the software privately to one other person?
>
> No, since undistributed modification is protected by
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
> Those who
> actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any s
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
> modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
> the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
> rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications.
What right? :-)
--
Ther
Andreas Barth wrote:
> That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
> typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Raul Miller wrote:
>> 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
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
> > >b
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]:
> > I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant
> > given our current leadership philsophy.
>
> The difference is tha
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
