On 9/11/05, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Lessig? Larry Rosen? Séverine Dussollier? Etienne Montero?
> Dave MacGowan? Pam Samuelson?
Are you saying these people are on record in believing that the GPL
"works" in the sense we are discussing -- forbidding the distribution,
on terms
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>> propose an amendment to the SC.
>
> The GPL plainly discriminates against people who li
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
> propose an amendment to the SC.
The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where
software patents
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT.
>
> The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives
> enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough
> permissions to *right-holders*.
That doesn't appear to be part
It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. It could harm those who
have an agreement to offer support as an agent of an upstream
non-initial developer (like "Epson service centre" or whatever),
and maybe otherwise. Why should this licence be allowed to
restrict business relationships?
That is ve
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
> For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible
> reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible
> reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following
> general principle:
>
>
> UMORIA 5.4, however, was released after the copyright law change. Anyway,
> it contains additional copyright notices (Christopher J. Stuart, Joseph Hall,
> etc.). They have not relicensed their work. So it appears that UMORIA 5.4
> is not yet free software.
Joseph Hall has released his portio
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Michael> On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael> > I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
Michael> > boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think
that
Michael>
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> You seem to be making a call for interpreting the DFSG literally. I
> think this is impossible. We should stay as close to the spirit of the
> DFSG and we should rely on the text as our best clue. However, things
> will *always* com
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
>
> > So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a
> > discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
> > popular among some debian-legal@ contributor
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> >> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >>
> >> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
> So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a
> discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
> popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
> project was not looking, I believe that it is bas
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>
>> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
>> >
>> >
>> The Dissident test is a
Sophos Plc MailMonitor for Domino/D R1.0(4.003c)
Server: RKWGMBH
---
Your email contained infected attachment(s). For advice consult your
system administrator.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [License follows as inline MIME foo]
html2text is a piece of crap.
> At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
> with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
> analysis, that shou
15 matches
Mail list logo
