> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> Yuck.
If I might reinterpret your comments a tad more abstractly, I take it
you're saying that the document exceeded the mandate of its title,
since it discusses free software license issues in general; and that
it has insufficient global structu
On Aug 19, 2004, at 20:27, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Andrew Suffield:
Here's the snarly bit:
Take a copy of curl, not built with ssl support. Build your GPLed
application, linking it to this curl. There should unarguably be no
problems here - everything involved is GPL-compatible.
Now, go and
Sorry for the late response; I'll avoid re-hashing points. Assume for a
moment that this 'clarification' is sensical and valid:
* o Integrates source code from
Nmap *
I think we'd generally consider that restriction free, and it would be
in line wit
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
>
> (Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing
> things they were clearly granted permission to do; that's wonderful.)
Wasn't the force behind the
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:35:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
> > copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
> > Debian deferred to
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
>> > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
>> > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
>> > ago.
>>
>> More specifically, he claims
* M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
> > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> > ago.
>
> More specifically, he claims to be in discussion with Debian how to
> stop SuSE from
* Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040901 23:15]:
> If the original copyright holder has granted you the right to modify
> and distribute under "any later version" of the GPL, and you fail to give the
> recipients of your deriviate work the same right, then you violate the
> spirit of the GPL, wh
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 01:11:42PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Taken altogether, it looks like this package is not distributable by
> anybody with parts under the JS-GPL.
I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
I don't know how far back we'd have to go to f
The copyright file for cdrtools is excellently done -- I wish all
maintainers kept the separate threads of ownership so clear. It does
make it pretty clear that cdrecord is not distributable.
Followup-For: Bug #265546
Joerg Schilling's license is essentially the GNU GPL plus some extra
restrict
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
>> copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
>> Debian deferred to the copyright holder's
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
> copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
> Debian deferred to the copyright holder's interpretation in that case.
That doesn't rea
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
>> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
>> didn't have a license to distribute mod
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which
>> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL.
>>
>> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
> didn't have a license to distribute modified versions. So it got
> pulled from main.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which
> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL.
>
> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling prior versions out of main.
I see this as a similar cir
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
otherwise. We basic
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:40:40AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> In this case, what matters is that nobody be able to say "Debian took
> this guy's software and did something he didn't want done with it."
Given the nonsense that's been posted in his name, there's some serious
doubt that we
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
>> you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
>> in the meantime it should just be m
Brian Sniffen writes:
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
>> new statements
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
Is there any chance that someone has hacked his account?
Alternatively, is there any chance that he's writing in german and
relying on a program to translate what he says?
Or, maybe, that
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
> you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
> in the meantime it should just be moved to non-free.
Distributing a forked copy
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>>> fork f
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous stateme
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> > otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> > fork from a previous free version
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
> new statements also apply to older (GPL) v
Hi Steve!
You wrote:
> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
> new statements also apply to older (GPL) versions of cdrtools s
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:19:26AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
>> Please note that this is just the way I interpret the GPL and as this
>> is my software, users should follow my interpretation of the GPL and not
>> use their own different interpretations.
>
>This came up
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
> [...]
>>> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord
29 matches
Mail list logo
