Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Shriramana Sharma
Anthony Towns wrote: And whom do the ftp-masters themselves answer to? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Debian is answerable to the public, you know. No, Debian's answerable to its members, which is the "or a vote" option above. The only senses in which Debian's answerable to the public is by peo

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:50:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > > Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > > > it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct? > > > > That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the ba

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Ben Finney
Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed > > DFSG-free"? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to > > know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler. > > For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote as a

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct? > > That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that it's imposing > a non-free restriction ("You may not ...") on the r

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:42:25 +0200 Olive wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: > > Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free > > > > By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed > > DFSG-free"? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure w

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Anthony Towns
> Olive wrote: >> non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by >> no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp >> masters or a vote can decide litigious cases. Uh, litigious cases get decided by a court presumably. "Contentious" might be

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Shriramana Sharma
Olive wrote: non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp masters or a vote can decide litigious cases. And whom do the ftp-masters themselves answer to? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Debia

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Olive
Ben Finney wrote: Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed DFSG-free"? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It would make our lives on this list much sim

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Ben Finney
Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed DFSG-free"? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler. > but were de

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Olive
Ben Finney wrote: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct? Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Ben Finney
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC > >by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in > >main. Correct? > Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this > way are

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work >> that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to >> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the >> License. > >There seem to be consensus that as long as ther

Re: SIM-IM uses default ICQ sounds

2007-09-11 Thread Andrew Donnellan
On 9/11/07, Joseph Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do sounds count as trademarks? If so, this likely is one. There are audio trademarks, yes, although this may not be one. However, audio is definitely copyrightable, so even if it isn't a trademark it may very well be a copyright violation. --

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Ben Finney
Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Relevant part, in article 4a of > >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode > >>> You may not impose any effective technological measures on the > >>> Work that restrict the a

moonlight

2007-09-11 Thread Robert Millan
Any comments on this one? I think we're safe shipping it as long as patent coverage isn't inherently necessary to implement the spec. Then if patent threats appear, the code can be fixed to circumvent them. But then again, it sounds really scary (specially considering once the web has stablishe

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

2007-09-11 Thread Olive
Ben Finney wrote: Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Relevant part, in article 4a of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise th