> Err, have you read the GPL licence recently ? If it is not specifically into
> every detail, i dont' know what is. There is specific text about binding and
> such, and it makes explicit mentions of distribution of a work linked with the
> GPLed work.
There is not one mention of "link" in the GN
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:16:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> No response yet to my reasonable thread, i wonder if it was the good way to
> go finally.
I'll speak up and say that your new thread appears to be fairly inclusive of
several points of concern in the QPL.
I imagine that nobody has re
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:50:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, I used to think that myself, until Steve Langasek and Henning Makholm
> argued me to exhaustion. :)
>
> Debian interprets "this License" and "herein" to mean the conditions of
> the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no mor
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> > To me it seems potentially useful to release licensees from those
> > requirements.
>
> I agree, but at the same time, Branden explicitly forbids to
> re-introduce these requirements, creating the GPL com
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:45:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of
> > > > > "course of
> > > > > action" exactly.
>
> > > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
>
> >
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:27:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course
> > > > of
> > > > action" exactly.
> > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
> > In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of
> > upstre
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:57:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
> >am sure
> >others keep log and can provide the info.
>
> You can't prove it and no-one can
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:33:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:29:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > grep -rl "THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE" */copyright
>
> > cervisia/copyright
> This is QPL-only, and a bug should likely be filed. :sigh:
> (This is the real QPL, with Norway and Oslo.)
>
[snip]
> These are mostly GPL-only, in fact.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:48:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >Sounds good. You may or may not want to take into account the Debian Wiki
> >page on DFSG-free licenses[1], and what it has to say about the QPL.
>
> I disagree with this to some extent:
>
> > The D
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:20:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> You assume that upstream is less likely to abuse the license or courts
> >
> > Well, in this particular case, knowing the upstream author and the french
> > judicial system, i know that he is less likel
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything
> other than the code they cover.
I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1]
But regardless, there isn't a requirement of the DFSG saying that
explicitely,
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:45:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:34:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more
> > its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
>
> As the proposer of
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> >> He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
> >> >> call. Additionally, th
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:44:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> At the very least, the Dictator Test may be useful to tell us when we need
> to contact the licensor to get clarification on the license's meaning.
I think that's the usual use of the tests. Have we ever dismissed a licence
yet m
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
> fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
> QPL.
That only comes automatically with the QPL; with the GPL, I can work
in a small group with no risk tha
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:34:00AM -0700, tom wrote:
> <> O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg <> > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in
> <> > will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section
> <263 is
> <>
> <> 95% of the
Ok, i have been counseled to stop doing a tantrum about this issue, and to
sumarize my position about this.
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to thi
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:39:45PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, 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,
On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
am sure
others keep log and can provide the info.
You can't prove it and no-one can see it because you don't keep logs.
When you get a log, things change.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:40:26AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, i was told that i should use repetition in order to get attention, was i
> not ? And the thread hardly needed me to become lengthy, given the 2+ hours i
> needed to go through it before i even started posting.
"If you have an arg
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:59:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer 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 licen
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 c
On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
wrote:
[...]
Hrm, when did Brian cla
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more
> its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
As the proposer of the Dictator Test, I call bullshit.
I'm perfectly happy with the concept of
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-20 00:40:26 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thread starting here probably :
http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200112/msg0.html
Not directly about the QPL though, altough i mention the exact
licencing stand
of ocaml, including the QPLed compiler suite
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
>> >> call. Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as
>> >
>> > Well, i am somehow doubtf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First, thanks for not CCing me on this, as i asked.
>
> >Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue",
> >> if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not
> >> respecting the li
Sven Luther writes:
>> You assume that upstream is less likely to abuse the license or courts
>
> Well, in this particular case, knowing the upstream author and the french
> judicial system, i know that he is less likely to do so. My own guess is that
> it would never go beyond a few email exchang
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:42:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> IIRC, neither of us could find a log of this incident, so can you
> please stop referring to it? Seeing as you wrote you had "no time for
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i am sure
others keep log and can
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
> >> hostile governments.
> >
> >Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't sh
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Thanks, but in all this
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:16:24AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 09:00:02 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Data point: I can't scare up the reference at the moment, but The XFree
> >Project, Inc., asserted that the warranty disclaimer was a "condition"
> >of the MIT
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
> > You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't
> > say "You agree not to sue..." or "You agree that there is no
> > warranty..."
>
> Wrong, there are certainly some cases:
>
> | THIS D
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:37:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> Most of debian-legal consider "choice of venue" clauses to be
> >> non-free, since they compel any redistributor or even user of the
> >> software to present themselves in a foreign court; even in the same
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:37:13PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> > Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
>
> Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
> venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:39:13PM -0400, [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,
Indeed, much that it may well be good for a woman to be able to nurse her
child a
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:37:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Point one: The Debian Social Contract says "Our priorities are our
> users and free software" -- no mention of authors, and there is an
> abundance of free software authors.
Actually, if you read the text, you'll see that "the free s
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:37:47PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> WE ARE NOT LAWYERS
[...]
> I suggest that in the vast majority of cases it is clear when a license
> is free in a practical sense. MPL has obscure clauses that bother
> some debian-legal extremists, but in practice, MPL mee
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:01:41AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-19 18:11:53 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your
> >>continual
> >>unprovoked rudeness a
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:01:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper.
Well, *this* list is like a debate, as are discussion lists generally.
Announcement lists are more like newspapers.
--
G. Branden Robinson| What influenc
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a
> >Well, you claimed
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We are obligated to serve the interests of our users and free software.
> This is *no* obligation to accept all free software into the archive.
That premise appears to be firmly rejected by a segment of Debian
developers.
We are, i
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 (may
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:46:27AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> > > >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:14:19PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > after you (plural and impersonal you) all dragged me into this
> > mud pit
>
> I've have watched many extended arguments, and participated in
> many myself. When I get involved in an argument like you have,
> it's a clear sign I have
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:04:13PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > not wanting to give the modification back to upstream and thus
> > to the community at large.
>
> I'm happy giving back to the community at large. I'm not happy
> giving back to anyone who demands the capability to take my
> modificat
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 18:47, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What? That doesn't follow at all. Even ignoring that, you're still
> > wrong. You have no guarantee that upstream hasn't done something that is
> > assumed to breach the GPL, such as depend
> after you (plural and impersonal you) all dragged me into this
> mud pit
I've have watched many extended arguments, and participated in
many myself. When I get involved in an argument like you have,
it's a clear sign I have too much time on my hands or I'm
avoiding work. If you are concerned ab
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
> >
> > If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> > you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
>
> Well, sorry, but mail writing in
> not wanting to give the modification back to upstream and thus
> to the community at large.
I'm happy giving back to the community at large. I'm not happy
giving back to anyone who demands the capability to take my
modifications proprietary, especially not if they won't give
me the same options.
On 2004-07-19 22:27:05 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
Elsewhere you thank people for not cc'ing. I am confused about what
you want.
Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be
other
reasons to it. What is the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:58:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [Sven wants cc]
>
> On 2004-07-19 17:34:12 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>You have mentioned this to me before, but I did not find it in the
> >>list
> >>a
Sven Luther writes:
>> Most of debian-legal consider "choice of venue" clauses to be
>> non-free, since they compel any redistributor or even user of the
>> software to present themselves in a foreign court; even in the same
>
> Well, sure, but what about the dual case. The case were the offendor
On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a
Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no
such thing.
Thus
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
> > > suggestion, so i have
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:53:37 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Once you make a release, and you are afraid of loosing your changes,
> you send those changes upstream in prevention, and thus comply to the
> licence in advance.
That could be a good way to persuade upstream copyright holders to
switch to a
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >In contrast, if the copyright holder declares his right to terminate the
> >license based on a termination clause, there really is no arguing with it.
> >At all. It's not just a lawsuit, it's "give up and go home".
>
> Which is
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> So why "should have one" rather than "needs one"? Many people are
> fond of emphasizing the "Guidelines" part of DFSG, and I hope that
> everyone would agree that a restriction on use is non-free. Yet there
> are always some who dis
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:43:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: "The license may not
> >require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
> >
> >What is this "royalty or other fee"? I claim it is the normal
> >
On 2004-07-19 20:55:41 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What does our freeness guidelines have to say about licence clause
that are
lacking in legality ? Are they still considered ?
The guidelines are silent on that, as I'm sure you could tell. They
still worry some -legal contr
On 2004-07-19 18:11:53 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your
continual
unprovoked rudeness and paranoia.
Not to mention the way Branden and its cronies greated me on i
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-19 17:34:12 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
You have mentioned this to me before, but I did not find it in the
list
archive. Do you have a more specific reference, please?
No sorry, searching fo
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
If you set the Mail-Followup-To header to incl
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>
> If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> you. I have no obligation t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> > >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
> > >> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination cla
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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 shou
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:37:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
>
> Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
> expecting every subscriber to thi
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:36:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The GPL discriminates against people on
> > desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
>
> I must have missed that one. How?
> >>>
> >>> Because they can't give a
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:35:48PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Civil law countries define and treat contracts differently than common
> >> law countries. I'm not a lawyer, much less one specializing in
Branden Robinson writes:
> The DFSG does not have a clause which mandates a license must not restrict
> the usage of a work by all recipients. Does it need one[1]?
As a non-DD, I would say it should have one, with perhaps one
exception as described below. That kind of restriction is probably
no
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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-fr
This message has taken a lot of thought to reply to. Your reasons are
convincing -- if some facet of freedom cannot be justified through the
DFSG, they should be amended to include it. Failed amendments likely
indicate that the perception that this was an important facet of
freedom is wrong.
Sam
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
expecting every subscriber to this list to do your work for you.
> >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +02
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The GPL discriminates against people on
> desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
>>>
>>> Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
>>> companion.
>>
>>That person has either delet
Sven Luther writes:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Civil law countries define and treat contracts differently than common
>> law countries. I'm not a lawyer, much less one specializing in
>> international law, so I can't very well say how valid that clause
>>
Hallo Ihr Lieben,
kann mir jemand eine nette, gute deutschsprachige Mailingliste
empfehlen, in der man auch als Anfänger in der C-Programmierung seine
Fragen stellen kann? Würde ich jetzt googlen, erhielte ich zwar bestimmt
eine Menge Ergebnisse, aber ich müsste die Listen dann zuerst abonnieren
u
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
>> have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
>
>If I remember correctly, both
Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
>> seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
>> the defendor, wh
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +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
> >> does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in
Please CC me, as i am not subscribed, and uysing lynx over ssh to participate
is hardly convenient.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is
>> done
>> at installation time, and the linking at emacs
>> And i have some doubt that if he failed to ask for them (or you where a
>> little
>> silent on the proposing of them as we often do at shows and such), that
>> changes anything to the issue. You should have given them to him anyway, as
>> is your obligation under the GPL.
>
>Where, specifically
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Let's keep in mind that the FSF has a copyright assigment policy as
> well. It's very, very similar to BSP's, as I understand it, except
> that whereas the FSF is the assignee of the copyright and grants
> back to the original copyright holder a no-ho
[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous
> as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.
Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragr
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > The exact text of the licence is :
> >
> > Choice of Law
> >
> > This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> > settled by the Court of Versailles.
> >
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:48:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> >On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The GPL discriminates against people on
> >> desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
> >
> >I must have missed t
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is done
> at installation time, and the linking at emacs run time. Furthermore, since i
> remove them from binary packages, even the above is not done.
Assuming thi
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
> > in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
> > said it.
>
> All right. Which licenses to we accept as DFSG-free even though the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
> seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
> the defendor, which would make this clause illegal and thus void.
Good, then
Sven Luther writes:
> The exact text of the licence is :
>
> Choice of Law
>
> This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> settled by the Court of Versailles.
>
> So this means that it is a question of choice of law rather than choice of
> v
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL non-free.
> >
> >I didn't claim that it was, so this statement isn't relevant.
>
> Ok, so everything is fine, and there is no reason to change the licence, nor
> to r
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:50:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > > What request ? And i doubt you can prove to the judge you ever made that
> > > request to me.
> > "I bought a commerical on cable asking for modifiers to send me their
>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * 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 happe
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:24:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:58:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> > Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier
> >> > to get
> >> > Trolltech
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
>
> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV
bro
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
