Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
>>applicant:
>>
>>>5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily
>>>discussed on debian-legal recently. Read
>>>http://people.d
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If the Program specifies {a version number of this License which
>> applies to it} and {"any later version"} ...
> That looks plausible grammatically, but still doesn't make much sense
> legally [we're waiting for clarification from the FSF on an aspe
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:41:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Response from David Turner, forwarded with permission. As noted, please
> keep the ticket number ("gnu.org #209128") in the subject line if you CC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with responses. I havn't added them to the CC of this
> forward,
Response from David Turner, forwarded with permission. As noted, please
keep the ticket number ("gnu.org #209128") in the subject line if you CC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with responses. I havn't added them to the CC of this
forward, since I don't want to bother them with mails not intended to go
to the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
> > to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
> > [a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b] was not imposed by
> > the or
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
> to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
> [a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b] was not imposed by
> the original d
> > > There are ten instances of the word "version" in that section. Only
> > > one can possibly be read as "version of the Program." That is the one
> > > inside the double quotes; but actual practice does not support that
> > > reading.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "actual practice". Do
Raul Miller writes:
> >9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
> >versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
> >versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
> >differ in detail to address new problems or concerns
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:26:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to
> imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how
> "portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a
> reference to a GPL'd p
>
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
> >applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
> >following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
> >later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
Raul Miller <[EM
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:37:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > I omit your "expansions" of this because I think they are somewhere
> > > between exercises in silliness and exercises in perversity.
> Raul Miller writes:
> > In other words: you disagree, but don't want to express any speci
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
>> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
>> > example?
>
>> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
>> > appropriate cop
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> >to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
> >terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
> >published by the Free Software Foundation.
> Raul Miller <[EMA
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
>applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
>following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
>later version published by the Free Software
Raul Miller writes:
> > >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> > >to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
> > >terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
> > >published by the Free Software Fou
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:07:36 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and
> > any other licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD
> > licence.
> >
> > What do you find non-free in this ?
>
> It compels me to grant upstre
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:07:21 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the "more
> permissive" license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see
> such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them
> $10k or so, and you ge
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:11:57 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Anyway, we aren't going anywhere. I don't think this has any real
> impact on my opinion of the QPL, anyway, though it may to others.
Nor on mine...
I still think that QPL#3b is non-free.
Add the other issues that have larger consensus..
> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
> > example?
> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
> > appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequa
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
>> > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
>> > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400,
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> >to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
> >terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
> >published by the Free Software Foundation.
On Fri, Aug 27, 200
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What happens to the notices which claim:
>> >
>> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> > the Free Software Foundation; either versi
Raul Miller writes:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> > > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> > > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas S
> > What happens to the notices which claim:
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> > any later ve
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's the real m
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
That's the real misunderstanding. That very clearly refers to any
later version of the GPL, not
> > However, this doesn't mean that a copyright holder who distributes the GPL
> > (version 2) with a prohibition on people distributing any other version
> > has granted other people the right to distribute at all.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Whoah. So
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
>> notices. For example, if I made
> > How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
> notices. For example, if I made changes to gcc, I might distribute
> the result
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
>> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
>
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
>> > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
>> > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
>> > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
>> > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
>> >
>> > And, that's what you have call
> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:00:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
>> > > version of it?
>
>> Raul Miller writes:
>> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:45:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* opt
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> I find badly writte
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
> >>
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 23:59]:
> If Raul's interpretation of the GPL is correct
> (the second alternative above), then [...]
Then 0 is 1 and black is white and humanity dies when
trying to pass a street.
Sorry, could not resist,
Bernhard R. Link
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040827 01:15]:
> If "GPL v2" is understood to prohibit the exercise of either of the
> options from section 9, then this interpretation would have merit.
GPL v2 cannot mean to prohibit anything. As section 9 says that
GPL v2 means GPL v2. (And one could have made
39 matches
Mail list logo
