On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
> right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other
countries have the right to respond in kind. Germany, for exampl
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is close to fail the DFSG, but passes. Clause
> > > > 5d of GPLv3 is worse (since it's more restrictive, being extended
> > > > to more cases), and hence it's even closer to fail the DFSG.
> > > There is no q
Scribit Anthony W. Youngman dies 02/07/2007 hora 21:37:
> > But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2
> > or later" under the GPL version 3?
> Actually, YOU CAN'T.
>
> The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the
> copyright.
Actually, the text s
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> discussed.
>
> There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
> or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
> good chance
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > "Border-line" implies that it could go either direction. This is
> > not true. Regardless of how you feel about thi
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:57PM -0400, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> > than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> > packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> > Component, and
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 3, 29 June 2007
> 1. Source Code.
>
> The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> than the work as a whole, that (a) is incl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted und
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Um, no. "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice. There is,
however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for anybody representing
someone else at trial to be legally trained. The title
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on de
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
* Santiago Vila:
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+ licenses have been published by the Free Software
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
> > respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on
> > the matter.
>
> > "Bor
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:52:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> > we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> > distribute GPLv2-
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> distribute GPLv2-only compiled executables.
Unless the GPLv2-only work copyright holder(s
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > > I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a
> > > DFSG
> > > issue.
> > The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO.
>
> Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The
> > u
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:45:48 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> > It does not even seem to express certainty...
>
> (I am not a professor of English)
>
> The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has chang
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 20:43:22 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > My case was:
> >
> > Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
> > A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot... :-(
> >
> > Frankly speaking, it seems more
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Um, no. "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
> resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
> copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license [...]
Well, t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):
Uh, no, you didn't:
http:/
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:38:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > LGPLv3 libraries
> > could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
> I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true.
> AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a DFSG
> > issue.
> The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO.
Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already, I see! ;)
> If you ha
"Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Francesco Poli:
To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.
"SHING GPL" ?
"Sun HP IBM Nokia Google", major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:
| You ma
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:09:53AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
> >people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
> >criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be
Adam Borowski wrote:
Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty. The voice can tell me a lot wh
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:00:38PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Free Software, when it's really free and not merely a ruse to sneak some
> >proprietary crap through, makes us free from legal concerns -- both "am I
> >allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people to have a right to use Y
> >wit
Adam Borowski wrote:
The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position.
This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying "the list of rights the
user acquires with the software". This clause is not about making the
GNU Manifesto
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> >Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?
>
> I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
> see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
The
Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?
I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one --
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Iain Nicol wrote:
> >If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
> >would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
> >but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any use
Steve Langasek wrote:
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.
If this were true, the logical con
Iain Nicol wrote:
If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.
My in
33 matches
Mail list logo
