On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:23:37PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > opinions aren't going to work for policy. For non-program files such as
> > multimedia or publications, there should be a master list of MIME types
> > and a voted-on list of acceptable source code formats for each MIME
> > type,
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 22:48, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:33:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > >
> > > I think "preferred form of modification" still works here -- if the form
> > > is too large to be easily passed around, it's clearly not preferred.
> >
> > I disagree.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:33:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >
> > I think "preferred form of modification" still works here -- if the form
> > is too large to be easily passed around, it's clearly not preferred.
>
> I disagree. The preferred form of modification for these movie clips is
>
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:24:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
> DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still
> dislike it; see the bottom of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.h
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
> DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still
> dislike it; see the bottom of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which
> nobody commented on.
Since a
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:23:07 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I'm not sure how to interpret this; I'm not familiar enough w/ SRP-Z. Is
>> this a different algorithm, such that the source would need to be
>> significantly modified (such that SRP-Z is e
Apologies for the thread break; reading from *not* my usual computer.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Regardless of whether choice of venue is a "fee", the only people I've
seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex
Spoon and Sven Luther.
On the other side, we appear to have: Edm
>So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
>the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
>same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
>the core of Nathaniel's concerns.
That's Nathan*a*el. :-)
Looks good. I was
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:09:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
> >the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
> >same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
> >the cor
Josh Triplett writes:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
>> remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
>> would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
>> objection...
>
>No, I think the main obje
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G"
> >in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines".
> Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among a
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:13:07PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > There's a cost, too, though. Source for images is often very big (eg.
> > layered PSDs). Source for sounds is often huge, being anything from PCM
> > data for simple recordings to Fruity Loops data, etc. Source data for
> > a sma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG.
> >The "G" in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines".
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among
> all
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> the QPL of the patch ?
I think that the initial developer does not have to comply with the QPL
of the patch, because he/she already has the rights he/she needs (the
right
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G"
>in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines".
Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among all
developers.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:26, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > The question, for me, is whether starting to require this source is
> > > useful for Debian, balanced against the cost of throwing out stuff
> > > that clearly fails it, and the
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:25PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
> > GPL-incompatible]
>
> Really, there are so many good reasons to drop that clause that I don't
> grasp why some folks refuse to (when asked; I certainly understand wh
Daniel Stone wrote:
> As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
> quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness?
I think Simon Law summarized the X-Oz license back in February of 2004. See the
post here:
"Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License"
htt
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > The question, for me, is whether starting to require this source is
> > useful for Debian, balanced against the cost of throwing out stuff
> > that clearly fails it, and the added maintenance costs (maintainers
> > having to track
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:59:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
> GPL-incompatible]
>
> > As a point of note, RMS has said that this interpretation is considered t
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
> quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness? I
> would really like comments from the peanut gallery, the cheap seats, the
> people who aren't l
A p proval Letter
Joseph
Trusted Bank Group
Ref: 82710
Sir:
this letter is to confirm that you have been a.pproved
to ref i nance for a
conventional mor t gage at 3.75% pending completion
of your application.
We have verified that you fit our mor t gage guidelines
to qualify for our low
r
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi guys,
> We're trying to release X11R6.7.1 over at X.Org these days, but we've
> hit a little roadbump.
>
> As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
> licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to inclu
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 13:59, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:07:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Surely that can't be Free.
> >
> > Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
> > non-free.
> >
> > (
[self-reply]
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:59:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That the FSF regards this as a violation they can overlook doesn't mean
> other people using the GNU GPL won't, and there are many.
Er...
s/won't/will/
Hopefully my meaning was clear from context.
--
G. Branden R
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
[on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
GPL-incompatible]
> As a point of note, RMS has said that this interpretation is considered to
> be a bug in the GPL, and that the FSF has no current intention of pursuing
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:07:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Surely that can't be Free.
>
> Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
> non-free.
>
> (That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
(and
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip XFree license)
> Surely that can't be Free.
Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
non-free.
(That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the
> RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G"
in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guid
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
> -- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
> years of data but a really, really big dongle?
A dongle is a piece of hardware designe
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, on the release call today, it was alleged that the code was
> actually DFSG-free, and that the so-called 'X-Oz licence' bore no legal
> problems whatsoever, and would be fine to go into main, or whatever[2].
I'm a little confused here. There's an
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:08:39 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> > > specially advantaged
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That is worrying, but I expect it's there to prevent dongleware. I
> don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
> -- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
> years of data bu
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:41:24AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> > specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
> >
> > The license must allow modi
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:41:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> >specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
> >
> > The license must allow modific
The following message bounced back to me because Mr. Markham, or someone he
trusts to deliver his mail, believes I am a spammer:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp.osuosl.org[140.211.166.131] refused to talk to
me: 550 Service unavailable; Client host [65.26.182.85] blocked using
dynablock.nja
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I believe that the legal systems of US states cooperate much more than
> those of different countries. Also, a dispute involving several states
> would probably be either escalated to federal court, or require you to
> appear in Cali
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:53:07AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis writes:
>
> Obviously debian-legal isn't a place to get legal advice, and I think
> most lawyers would demand more details before giving legal advice, so
> take all this with a grain of salt.
Of course.
> With cho
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:11:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I believe even the X-Oz licence did experience the addition of this
> problematic clause at some time, so this code could be a pre-change fork or
> something ? Daniel, what is in the COPYRIGHT or such file ? Could you paste
> that here
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:54:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Stone writes:
>
> > [3]:
> > /*
> > * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
> > * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
> > * All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaini
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Well, there's only one potential problem:
>
> > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
> > * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> > * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without p
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:45:02PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Daniel, you'll probably be happier if you set a Mail-Followup-To
> header to ensure you're CC'd.
>
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now, with a release only 23 days away (isn't this better already?),
> > we've
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, on the release call today, it was alleged that the code was
> > actually DFSG-free, and that the so-called 'X-Oz licence' bore no legal
> > problems whatsoever, and would be fine
Daniel Stone writes:
> [3]:
> /*
> * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
> * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software
Daniel, you'll probably be happier if you set a Mail-Followup-To
header to ensure you're CC'd.
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, with a release only 23 days away (isn't this better already?),
> we've hit a speedbump. It's been alleged in Debian circles that the
> XFree86 autoconfig
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, good point. That goes back to the problem regarding Debian not
> keeping old versions around. I had imagined that the user could usually
> just point to their distributor unless they personally changed the
> software, but that doesn't cover the c
[I am not on -legal; though I will read the archives, please CC.]
Hi guys,
We're trying to release X11R6.7.1 over at X.Org these days, but we've
hit a little roadbump.
As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include. X.O
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 09:24, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
>> forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
>
> "receive AND USE" ?
>
> That's a little worrying. A
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the
>> modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses
>> when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name
>> -- just no
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>How about something vaguely like:
>>>
>>>"""
>>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>>direct use by another party, without actually distributi
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure how to interpret this; I'm not familiar enough w/ SRP-Z. Is
> this a different algorithm, such that the source would need to be
> significantly modified (such that SRP-Z is essentially a separate thing,
> convered by its own license; converting S
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 11:07:34AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 09:03:31 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my
> > > code than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
> >
> > Easy, you place your patch under the QPL,
52 matches
Mail list logo
