Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I have recently come to believe that the GPL's requirement for source
> distribution is fundamentally different, and is in fact not truly a
> "compelled distribution" in the fashion of the QPL. Please rip my thought
> process to shreds if it's bogus.
>
> The core of my arg
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
>>>proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
>>
>> Or helpful to users.
>
> Users who want to write propr
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>>Sven Luther writes:
>>>
Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
security agencies, at least this is
Sven Luther wrote:
> I will ask upstream about this once they come back from vacations and have
> them see if their legal team, even if bad, can offer us some answer. Maybe the
> team working on the CECILL licence would also help here. What was the
> conclusion of that discussion ? And if we don't
Matthew Palmer writes:
>> You are not required to accept this License. However, nothing else grants
>> You permission to use, copy, modify or distribute the software or its
>> derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if You do not accept
>> this License.
>
> Would it be too much to in
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:28:24AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it makes you feel happier, consider the tests to be "proposed amendments
> > to the DFSG". Do you feel that the dictator test does not reasonably
> > diagnose a non-free licence, o
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:57:31AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That said, I don't think we are obligated to ship something just because
> it is DFSG free. For example, I don't think we should distribute
> massive quantities of public domain poronography. I don't think we
> should ship a BSD
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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.
>>Consid
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
> > > security agencies, at least this is how i understood it. This inc
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
> company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
> confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding
> You are not required to accept this License. However, nothing else grants
> You permission to use, copy, modify or distribute the software or its
> derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if You do not accept
> this License.
Would it be too much to instantiate a test which states t
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes
> > > you
> > > has left in disgust, and yo
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>>>And did you notice that trolltech is not a copyright holder on OCaml, and
>>>therefore their opinion isn't worth a hill of beans? Annotations ar
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
>>proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
>
> Or helpful to users.
Users who want to write proprietary software can figure out for
themselves which s
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
>> > licence?
>>
>> I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
>
>> > If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
>> > g
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If you think we should be trying to interpret things like "must not
> discriminate", I'm not sure we have much at all that could be
> grounds for consensus, to be honest.
You feel that any amount of effective discrimination inherit in a
license is DFSG
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
> legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
> amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
> DDs. If not, we clearly as
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
>> debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
>> debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
>
>I certainly have no desire to waste time arguin
User ID: 4 drunk
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:15:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--87873530057614470287"
87873530057614470287
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Debian-laptop-request
Why pay more when you can enjoy the be
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:33:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm really beginning to lose patience here - just about everybody here
> seems quite prepared to debate licenses forever, but doesn't want to
> actually _do_ anything about them...
Then please take up the work: make a suggested chan
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
> debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
> debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
I certainly have no desire to waste time arguing about arbitrary terminatio
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:49:32 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
>
> A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
> to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
> problems and require ex
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
> proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
Or helpful to users.
> I consider it to be neither. In my case, I would have absolutely no
> interest in taking the software proprietar
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
> people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
> then claim consensus afterwards. They may just as well procede to say
> that whoever
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
>> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>>
>> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
>> you don't
Glenn Maynard writes:
>>
>> The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Or is
>> the point of debate on -legal simply to justify the existence of
>> -legal?
>
>If you're going to argue that the DFSG should be changed from a set of
>guidelines (which, by definition, require inter
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
> > licence?
>
> I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
> > If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
> > granted by section 3?
>
> They do not, since they apply to t
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
>
> *You've* driven three people out of this discussion wi
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:01:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I apparently just forgot it in the flood; thanks for pointing it out
> again. Of course, that definition would mean that DFSG1 doesn't cover a
> license that says you must distribute a dollar along with any copy, but
> that's a minor
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
>>>proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
>>>licence, and they are other who don't.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
>>particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
>>draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm sti
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
>>argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
>>proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 ca
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>No, you stated it fine. A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
>>logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
>>confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
>
> We have accepted must-change-name clauses (which are worse) in
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an
> >>all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it
> >
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> As a practical considerat
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:25:09PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
> > > > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
> > > > > strongest yet:
> > > > >
>
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an
>>all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it
>
> Again, you didn't seem to read the QPL, or maybe didn't understand it.
Josh Triplett writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> The version I suggested might be easily violated by proxy, though.
>> Suppose Joe and Jane are in cahoots. Jane modifies an application
>> under the license and gives the source to Joe. Joe offers the
>> modified application, but not the source, to
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:11:22PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual unless
> terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted hereunder
> will
> terminate:
> (c) automatically without notice from Licensor if You, at an
(Section 2.1.d)
> (d) You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications
> publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license
> grants
> set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or
> twelve (12) months from the date of ini
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:18:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> First of all, that sounds more like a matter of inconvenience, not a
> matter of non-freeness. After all, there are probably situations under
> which it would be a burden to distribute the source for a GPLed binary
> you are distribu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If it makes you feel happier, consider the tests to be "proposed amendments
>>to the DFSG". Do you feel that the dictator test does not reasonably
>>diagnose a non-free licence, or is your objection merely that it's not a
>>str
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
> argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
> proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 can
> sanely be taken that f
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:27:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-styl
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> It does seem like if the public performance right covers
> making a video game available for public use (which probably came up in
> a case against an arcade), it should also apply for making a web
> application available for public u
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sven Luther writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>> >> we're already doing for crypt
> [RPSL: https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl]
Please include the full text of licenses for review; it makes quoting
easier and makes the list archives much more useful later on.
https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl.txt:
RealNetworks Public Source License Version 1.0
(Rev. Date October 28,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>>
>>a) Distribute the comple
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>>For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is
>>>probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based
>>>on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties)
>>>of soft
Save up to 75% on Inkjet, Laser & Copier Supplies
Quality Products, with 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
Easy, Fast, Affordable Shipping Worldwide
Plenty of Payment Options to Meet YOUR Needs!
>> SPECIAL: FREE Shipping to US & Canada on Orders over $50 <<
Visit us on the web at http://www.excuria.
Hello lawyers :)
I have a simple question, please answer it just as simple :).
I wanna package the Helix DNA Producer and the Helix DNA Server for
debian (http://helix.alioth.debian.org). These two Helix components are
licensed under the RPSL (the HelixPlayer is now GPL'd).
The question for me a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
> > > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
> > > > strongest yet:
> > > >
> > > > (3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
> > > > suffi
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:01:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>
> > Sven Luther writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> >>> we're already doing for
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>
> >> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> >> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requir
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> > > > Versail
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing
> > these
> > things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
> > border, especiall
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing these
> things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
> border, especially as i mentioned the gcc case and RMS's posts in another mail
> of this large thread.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> That aside, you have not mentioned the advantages that the non-drafter
> receives from a choice of forum clause. A mid-stream user of the
> software, who both receives the software and passes it on, will get the
> same benefits that the originator of the software is ge
Am Sam, den 24.07.2004 schrieb Frank Lichtenheld um 14:26:
> This already exists: http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
> I didn't annouced or linked this very "visible" yet as there are ongoing
> discussions on d-legal how to do this right. If you want, I can dig in
> the list's archives for some
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:15:58PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
> > [MFT to d-legal, don't know what d-devel has to do with this]
>
> Keeping track of licences for prospective new packages is of interest to all
> developers.
Correct. So is keeping track of how close we are to finishing
debian-inst
Michael Poole writes:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>>
>>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
>>> the government a copy *ever
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> > > Versailles is probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a
> > > lawyer of
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
>> the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I t
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Lichtenheld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 July 2004 10:26 PM
>
> [MFT to d-legal, don't know what d-devel has to do with this]
Keeping track of licences for prospective new packages is of interest to all
developers.
>
> On Sat, Jul 24
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
>> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
>> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
>> suspect a copyright-based license clause would also be bi
[MFT to d-legal, don't know what d-devel has to do with this]
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:13:08PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
> I notice our free-software page, the one that points to the DSFG text
> (http://www.debian.org/intro/free), refers to a couple of sample free
> licenses (GPL, BSD et al).
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:59:39PM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> >I stopped reading right after 1e.
>
> Do you mean 1.1.e.?
Yes. There are several other smelly clauses with leave little doubt
about the freeness of the lic
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 23:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > the the format that upstream actually uses for modification or
> > creation of the work should be supplied.
>
> I'm perfectly happy providing the preferred form of modification for
> my works -- but th
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Laurent Fousse wrote:
>I stopped reading right after 1e.
Do you mean 1.1.e.?
Anibal Monsalve Salazar
--
.''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C
: :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800, Australia
`. `' http://debian.org/| http
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:13:08PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
> My motivation for asking for this is that my Xprint upstream author prefers
> ksh93 to bash, and would prefer it if we were to use it. Looking into
> ksh93, AT&T has now released it as open-source, but the licence
> (http://www.resea
I notice our free-software page, the one that points to the DSFG text
(http://www.debian.org/intro/free), refers to a couple of sample free
licenses (GPL, BSD et al).
I think it would be a useful resource if this page would also refer to
examples of licenses that Debian considers DSFG-nonfree (e.g
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:02:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I think this is a reasonable approach, in principle, as long as the word
> > "program" is removed from DFSG#1, #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9--so that it's
> > only used in #2. (s/program/work/ the rest, perhaps.)
>
> Special-casing ELF
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:28:24AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The closest I see is the mention of a fee in #1; a "restriction" might
> be construed as a "fee". However, if it is just about fees, there is
> no need for a new test.
DFSG#1 says "may not restrict". I believe the mention of fe
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:15:20AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:51:41AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > If upstream supplies source in the upstream, as per Andrews definition,
> > then I think that is OK. But if they don't, then that should not
> > constitute violation of D
On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 03:38, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The preferred form of modification is not always the same as the
> preferred form for creation. I keep the latter for modifying stuff; I
> don't always (probably rarely) keep the former,
Of course, that's backwards...
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PR
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 23:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the pictures are built from XCF files or PSD files instead of being
> created tabula rasa as a jpeg or gif or whatever, then the the format
> that upstream actually uses for modification or creation of the work
> should be supplied.
You make a
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with that statement, but it's not relevant to the discussion. The
> dictator test does not require that a licence make no prohibition
> whatsoever, it merely requires that a licence not prohibit actions which
> would be permitted by copyright law
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free
> > in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I
> > think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental
> > freedoms.
I'll reply
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > As another example, what if there were a jurisd
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:44:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:28:37PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I've refrained from posting further directly on the QPL
> > issue. The consensus of debian-legal seems to be evolving in more
> > clever directio
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | Choice of Law
> > |
> > | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> > > software in both the QPL licence and some ot
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:44:50PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> I think their exception is to allow free software to continue to use the
> GPL version of MySQL software. They are doing this instead of reverting
> back to LGPL because they want to get $$$ for licensing client libraries
> for commercia
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:51:41AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> If upstream supplies source in the upstream, as per Andrews definition,
> then I think that is OK. But if they don't, then that should not
> constitute violation of DFSG.
>
> We *need* a definition of "program" in the DFSG. This is the
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:44:50PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> >http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
> >
> >A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
> >to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:48:12AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Then maybe this is just a bunch of vapor. I don't think source code
> clause is even a starter for images, and other data. DFSG state explicitly,
>
>The *program* must include source code, and must allow distribution
> in source cod
[NB: Please follow debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me. I
have even taken the trouble to set MFT appropriately, and had on the
previous message as well. This is also rapidly becomming off topic for
-devel. MFT set appropriately (?) to -legal. Please respond there (and
don't Cc me.)]
On
Cool, I'm arguing against both Lex and Luther.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:21:02PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would point to an even more significant difference: the legal
> harrassment scenario cannot be avoided under any circumstances. No
And because they're unavoidable, we should allo
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>That is, on principle I agree with Andrew, but in practice I'm leaning
>to agree with you (but I'm not personally convinced strongly either way).
>In practice, Debian has never fought the source-code battle for images,
>fonts, sounds, movie clips, etc., and it's not clear tha
Don Armstrong wrote:
That is, if,
1. data format is known, and
2. data is under a free license according to DFSG
then such data is free according to DFSG.
If the work satisfies DFSG ยง2, then yes. If not, no.
Then maybe this is just a bunch of vapor. I don't think sourc
Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 there. In a free
> softwa
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The case at hand here applies to an hypothetical cost which you may encoure if
> you are violating the licence, or if upstream decides to become mad (or mad at
> you) and try lawsuit harrasment.
>
> See the difference. One is an immediate and incontournable
> > Ok, this seems indeed similar to what i was told. Now, what would be the
> > legality of that claim in the licence ?
>
> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Onlin
94 matches
Mail list logo
