* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >>>Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
> >>>specific.
> >>
> >>Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
> >
> >Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to
> > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as contaminating
> > things which are run within Kaffe
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:52:45PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > As others have pointed out, Dissident vs. Desert Island are somewhat
> > different tests. However, I guess it really depends on what
> > information is required by #3, in the intent of the a
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:30:33AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I don't think that there is any need for either Debian or the
> software author to fear things here. We already distibute several
> peer-to-peer filesharing implementations whose major real-life use is
> to distribute unli
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> > entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> > appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> >
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:16AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This does depend on the accuracy of the Depends line. If something
> > > uses native (JNI) library calls that are not standardized across
Scripsit Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:28:35PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
First off, irrespective of legality and morality, does Debian need
another comic downloader in the first place? There is already
dailystrips and stripclub in the archive.
>> "All comic
The phrase is not meant to restrict in any way the use of the
software. I do not want to put restrictions to users - I just want
tell them what they are likely to be forbidden to do.
Would you suggest a different phrasing?
Thanks,
Andres
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
specific.
Absolutely reasonable - it would be entirely against DFSG #8.
Umm, I don't understand. You'd like to make a deal but you recognize
that we can't under DFSG #8? That seems very paradoxical to me.
What I mea
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:28:35PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
>
> "All comics are copyright of respective owners, and redistribution of
> the comics is, for most comics and in most circumstances, not
> permitted. phpGrabComics is intended for personal use only."
Restricting phpGrabComics to p
Hi,
I am the author of a free software program called GNU phpGrabComics.
It started as a very small project, and now it is growing much as user
base. My server (I am on a shared hosting) is starting to have load
problems, and I have to consider what to do.
But, first of all, is the time for verif
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> >Before I get to them, one of the interesting things pointed out in one
> >of the threads is that the Trademark License might be more onerous
> >then what trademark law (at least in the US) allows. Now, they're your
> >trademarks,
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> below your copyright notice. In either case the author will need to
>> argue that even though he did write the code, the *licence* notice
>> was added fradulent
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> As others have pointed out, Dissident vs. Desert Island are somewhat
> different tests. However, I guess it really depends on what
> information is required by #3, in the intent of the author.
Yes, they sort of grew out of each other, though.[1] [The weak
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] But I don't
think completing this process needs to be a requirement for working out
the remaining issues.
I agree with this. I do think it's a requirement for going forwards
once any compromise is worked out.
Sure. That's why it's in
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:09:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified
> > > sources is granted, provided you
> > >1. distribute the co
Eric Dorland wrote:
Before I get to them, one of the interesting things pointed out in one
of the threads is that the Trademark License might be more onerous
then what trademark law (at least in the US) allows. Now, they're your
trademarks, and I have every intention of respecting your wishes when
The discussion of the new Graphviz license sort of petered out, but
I think there is a widespread interest into reaching a conclusion.
Therefore, I'm trying to ferret out dissent by the ancient and
venerable tactic of asserting that a consensus exists:
*D R A F T*
Debian licence summary of t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
>affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
Yes, because I do not believe that it is a "restriction on other
software".
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Personally, I think all licenses that impose restrictions like those in the
>APSL are non-free.
I think that these are all desireable restrictions in many classes of
free licenses.
OTOH, what we'd like to see or not in a license does not have an obvious
on its freeness.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the
> > license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it
> > wouldn't be a clear statement from the copyright holder that they
> > lice
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:51:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> We seem to be talking past one another. Maybe it's just that I'm
> implicitly assuming a separation between "library source code" and
> "program source code", and saying that the latter is only a derivative
> work of the former
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the
> license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be
> a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work
> appropriately.
I don't quite see how the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> I don't really think it's acceptable to move half of gnome into contrib.
> Fortunately, if the package dependencies of libhowl0 are accurate, this
> shouldn't be required; mdnsresponder isn't a dependency of libhowl0, only a
> recommends: w
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> > Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> > impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
> In this software the problem is two folds, some parts
Marco wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
> Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on
> the debian-legal mailing l
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I'm not planning to develop the instructions document by
> interactive trial-and-error with you on debian-legal ;-)
Fine, but at this time it's not easy to build a firefox-based browser
that Mozilla Foundation would be happy with, even with readi
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
In this software the problem is two folds, some parts of the software
are clearly free, and some other parts are a fork o
28 matches
Mail list logo
