On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I feel
> >it should apply to effective discrimination as well.
>
> So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
disc
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:59, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
> rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
> in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
> it danced around
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:19:51AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I think that this issue might be enough to get a change or two to the DFSG
> made. Compelled unrelated distribution and compelling the grant of a
> separate licence are both issues that I think need specific mention. The
> latter c
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Matthew Palmer writes:
>
> > Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> > particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> > avoid the whole issue by making the items in q
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:06:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
> gener
Matthew Palmer writes:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
> general public (which we do).
The QPL doesn
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Matthew Palmer writes:
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> >> I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
> >> are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exis
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
> unenforcable?
Probably, but you're stil
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> > location by choic
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> All users of the software are given the same license. The license
>> itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say "no
>> people on a desert island may use this" or similar.
>
>I think you're limiting it to explicit d
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
> > for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of
> > explicit
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:38:33PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:23:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > It's that last bit which is non-free. If they did something like the
> > FSF, and asked for copyright assignment, that would be free.
> >
> > If they did some
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:40:57AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> Finally, the spirit of the QPL, as from their annotated license[1] appears to
> be very much in favor of Free software. Section 6c's annotation states:
>
> "This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of
>any license that actually explicitly said "may not be used for bioweapons
>research", clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less
>direct arguments tend to reduce
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
> the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
> particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
> -- not the parts
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Sylvain LE GALL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
> > files :
> > - one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
> > compiler,
[answerinng only the off-topic parts, for clarification from the release
team:]
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
>--- Andy Korvemaker wrote:
> >>I was checking whether a new version of Abiword was
> >>available in
> >>Unstable and decided to see what was holding th
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dom Lachowicz
Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com
Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
I'm not sure if this is the reason or not, but please
see:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=25
> The international copyright treaties, if I am not mistaken, only
> grant copyrights to works which are capable of being subject to
> copyright in their 'home countries'.
It's not that simple. The US, for one, recognizes copyrights on
works under copyright under US law that aren't in copyright
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
> into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
> noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
> compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as w
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
> to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current
> interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are
> copyright-controlled in co
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
> the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
> particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
> -- not the parts in the library linked in, b
While a work may be in the public domain in the U.S., it may be under
copyright elsewhere. So, e.g., while works by the U.S. government may be
public domain in the U.S., they may remain under copyright in other
countries.
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
* The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS
instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further
information is
available
from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > This word "discriminate" - I don't think it means what you think it
> > means. All users of the software are given the same license. The
> > license itself does not d
"Sylvain LE GALL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
> files :
> - one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
> compiler, typing system et al
> - another set represents the standards library, stubs system
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
> into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
> noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
> compilers, an
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> All users of the software are given the same license. The license
> itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say "no
> people on a desert island may use this" or similar.
I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I fee
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:23:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I think the initial author's intentions are to *mostly* remain free.
> They probably want something a lot like Best Practical -- they just
> want to be able to sell a proprietary product, and have a free
> version, and put thin
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
>> >> Sven Luther writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a
I wasn't just talking about 6c, but also about 3b:
When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute your
modification in future versions of the Software p
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 PROT
My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well.
Now I look again at QPL 6:
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
>can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
>location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
>this to Iran". Instead, th
qwhzvotrhlmltvfzybfytcllamoveacjwuuccaazxryzhlnejybqazsdgfrescoes
Need a little spice in your life? having problems with your male parts?
Wana go for days? Keep the wife at home happy. Be happy.
I keep it hard here www.hardandbetter.com
namqxysuyvkrtqugisctxugifdrylkuhjgfrxlkuojczmktwtvumqy
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
> this to Iran". Instea
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute yo
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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. Mo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 s
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 th
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>Do we really want to randomly punish licenses which use the wrong
>>catch phrases,
>
> No. We want to deterministically reject licenses as predictably and
> reliably as we can.
s/reject/accept or reject/
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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 autom
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This word "discriminate" - I don't think it means what you think it
> means. All users of the software are given the same license. The
> license itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say "no
> people on a desert isla
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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 automati
Hallo Jochen,
die sist eine ednglischsprachige Mailingliste für lizenz und
juristische probleme von Debian-Software...
Denke, das Du auf debian-user-german besser aufgehoben bist.
Abgesehen davon habe ich mehrere Jahre deutschsprachige Programmiere
Mailinglisten gesucht OHNE ERGEBNIS.
Englis
Matthew Palmer writes:
>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
>> are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even though
>
>But it's really dangerous to do so. Allowing such a lic
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> There's no consistent and coherent argument going on, other than a
>> sort of fuzzy "We think it's not free, and we can sort of point at
>> these two things and handwave and say they cover them".
>
> DFSG 5 No Discrimination Ag
Branden Robinson writes:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly not clear that the new SC gives any leeway to use tests
>> that don't spring directly from the DFSG.
>
>Put that way, it doesn't give us any leeway to use "tests" at all.
>
>In any event, I
Florian Weimer wrote:
How? As MJ said, it's clearly "practical" to remove the author's
name in places where it would nevertheless be a grievous
restriction.
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
ho
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:37:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work,
> >> or to broadcast it.
> >
> > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the
> > GNU GPL?
>
> The GPL was designed to be applied
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
> >people to break the law"?
>
> Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040720 13:54]:
> >The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
> >people to break the law"?
>
> Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
> China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>people to break the law"?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported cryptography
software
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
[compelled unrelated distribution]
> For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
> impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial
> developer" is in.
> Consider something like a ssl-libra
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:33:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:16:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > > > > Also, in any sane legal
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> > > software items that link
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040720 04:06]:
> DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
> request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
> How much of
> this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
> nothing if yo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first "reproach".
> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On a more fundamental basis, abitrary termination clauses are odious and
>offensive to freedom because we are not free if we are just waiting for the
>hammer to fall. One of things you give up when you decide to share your
>work with the FLOSS communit
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all,
you lose
On 2004-07-20 10:15:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
honored, practically speaking?
I believe it should, if that mention of his name was essent
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:16:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > > > Also, in any sane legal
> > > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > > Also, in any sane legal
> > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the
> > > licence,
> > > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would
* Nathanael Nerode:
>> Oh, come on. We still can declare a document non-free if an author
>> tries to exercise his rights in an unacceptable way.
>
> This is not a viable interpretation. A freely licensed work must
> give a reasonable guarantee that the work will *remain* freely
> licensed. A w
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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 cla
* Branden Robinson:
> 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
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > Also, in any sane legal
> > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence,
> > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they
> > get.
>
> In any sane legal system, the judge
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > > chances of
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > 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
> Also, in any sane legal
> system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence,
> even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they
> get.
In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going
on from both sides before he even co
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 this.
>
> Let's quote the whole of section
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > chances of remaining in the archive.
> Well, did i try to delay examination ? I pos
74 matches
Mail list logo
