Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Ben Finney
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, how about I just say, it's a great FAQ that is totally open and > transparent and there are not a single ligament critique that could > ever be leveled at it. Why would you say that? I certainly don't think the FAQ entry you presented is immune to c

Re: inaccurate upstream copyright notice

2008-02-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Thibaut Paumard: > He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated (which > is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is unimportant and > I shouldn't care. I think this isn't that far from the truth, the GPL isn't usually interpreted in a way that requires proper attri

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:45:59 pm Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > The provision that I must post changes does not restrict ones ability to > > sell or give away the software, it simply imposes a constraint. This > > constraint is in no

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:51:05 pm Ben Finney wrote: > Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote: > > I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see > > why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete? > > In short, no

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:25:43 pm Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote: > > [...] > > > > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for > > > someone to *compel* De

Re: inaccurate upstream copyright notice

2008-02-29 Thread Ben Finney
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated > (which is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is > unimportant and I shouldn't care. The copyright statement, if clearly false, AFAICT means that the license statement is nul

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Ben Finney
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote: > I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see > why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete? In short, no. The answer given is a complete and correct answer to the question

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > The provision that I must post changes does not restrict ones ability to sell > or give away the software, it simply imposes a constraint. This constraint is > in no way different than the constrain imposed by the GPL that source cod

Re: inaccurate upstream copyright notice

2008-02-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:08:28 +0100 Thibaut Paumard wrote: [...] > He answered basically that the license itself is clearly stated > (which is true), and that since it is GPL, the copyright is > unimportant and I shouldn't care. > > Now, should I? If yes, could you give me a couple of argument

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > You're taking it in the wrong order. > The GPL doesn't forbid you to distribute the code because of the bloody > murderer. The dissident and the desert island tests are about > restrictions *inside* the license, related to some situations. Here, you > just

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for > > someone to *compel* Debian to accept a given license as "free". > > The question being asked is

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, > > > there is no explanation of how a "licenses

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 12:21:58 pm Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:09:33PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my tim

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 02:21:51 am Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, > > there is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be > > sent to some specific place" violates

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote: > Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives > > the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is > > final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it

Re: Desert island test (was: Questions about liblouis)

2008-02-29 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Friday 29 February 2008 05:29:19 am Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit : > > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared > > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an > > attempt to ti

Re: Desert island test (was: Questions about liblouis)

2008-02-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit : > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt > to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to deb

Re: Desert island test (was: Questions about liblouis)

2008-02-29 Thread MJ Ray
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt > to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to debate > and discuss the tes

Re: Questions about liblouis

2008-02-29 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:05PM -0800, Eitan Isaacson wrote: > >> 3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered > >> part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to > >> these tables a

inaccurate upstream copyright notice

2008-02-29 Thread Thibaut Paumard
Dear legal aware folks, I have recently adopted [1]gimp-gap. While reviewing it, I noticed that the copyright notice written on almost every file is inaccurate. It reads THE GIMP -- an image manipulation program Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis. Everything in there

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Miriam Ruiz
2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, there > is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be sent to > some specific place" violates: > > 1. Free redistribution. 1. Free Redistribution: The lic

Re: Desert island test

2008-02-29 Thread Ben Finney
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives > the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is > final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it is always right > (debatable?). I can only say in response that