e X-Oz license, someone needs to deal with the XFree86 1.0
license as well.
[1] http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html
[2] http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses
[3] http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:46:15PM -0500, selussos wrote:
> I am unaware of what AIUI means so I cannot comment on
> this at all.
As I Understand It
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:17:12PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> If the cryptlib author would state that he agrees with sleepycat's
> clarifications then I don't think there are any problems with this
> license.
Upon further review looks like the author has done this basically on
erstood.
My guess would be the author doesn't want the viral nature of the GPL.
They want copyleft, but not copyleft that is as restrictive about the
nature under which the source is made available.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
ycat his published the following clarifications to their license:
http://www.sleepycat.com/download/licensinginfo.shtml
If the cryptlib author would state that he agrees with sleepycat's
clarifications then I don't think there are any problems with this
license.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PRO
due to the placement.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
st/svn/archive-2004-03/0001.shtml
Later on in the thread I explicitly ask Brian if this is what he meant
(my summary above) in the linked message and he says yes.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:18:57PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:04:22AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > "Redo my work, Branden"?
>
> No, I think them making statements directly here is more effective than
> me relaying them. Like I said in another
u mean by conditional.
But the old XFree86 license (XFree86 4.3 and older, identified as the
XFree86 1.0 license) has the exact same language. It's the very last
sentence in the license, has no numbering and is after the disclaimer.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
ht to use the
> name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically
> attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can
> you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary?
I'm going to assume that X-Oz is going to find these questi
ritten
permission.
(Note that this is the BSD endorsement clause without the language about
contributors names)
2) Would you consider using this language instead of your existing
language for Clause 4 if it would relieve some fears that people have
about your license and resulted in better
e crux. I have argued that, depending on what is meant, it
> fails DFSG 9. You say it doesn't -- do you hold that position
> regardless of what clarification as to the meaning may be forthcoming
> from X-Oz Technologies, Inc.?
If they came back and said your interpretation is correct I
isticated about these things. That way, we better serve
> the interests of our friends who are bored to tears by legal crap and
> would rather just be writing and debugging code.
Okay, so I've wrongly accussed you of picking on a particular license.
But seeing the strong argument against this license and pretty much not
mentioning the other licenses (excluding XFree86 1.1) it seemed that
way.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
eels this clause is necessary?
Based upon what I've been told from them directly they included it
because it had always been there. They wanted a license that was
similar to the existing X licenses.
I really don't understand why the X-Oz / XFree86 licenses are being
picked on (and I reall
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:28:37PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> > 1) Do you need the right to use the name of the copyright holder in
> > order to make free use of the software?
>
> Copyright doesn't cove
you could comment on the issues raised in this email it would be most
helpful:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html
Thanks.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
nless they don't post directly here.
I'd rather everyone gets this from directly rather than indirectly.
> It's easy to misunderstand "denying it as DFSG compliant is
> ridiculous".
Yeah I realize the ambiguity now.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.
s but rather
seek an explanation from them. I've emailed them privately asking for
clarification on Clause 4. I have not asked about Clause 3 since it is
clearly directly copied from the Apache 1.1 license.
> First you write that claiming DFSG compliance is ridiculous, and now
> yo
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 08:47:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-01 18:35:13 +0000 Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Did you read the license we're talking about?
>
> I was referring to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg0015
unreasonable requests. None of the tests in Q8 on the
first URL you gave are failed.
Let's assume that Clause 4 doesn't even exist in the license now. Can
the author still sue you into oblivion for using his trademarks? You
betcha.
In fact this license is explicitly giving you
he question of if there is a copyright
on the work. Ask them and see if they would be willing to write a
statement regarding that and publish it on their website.
If they were to proclaim that they considered the works to be in the
public domain, it'd be difficult for them to claim otherwise
easily solved. All the remaining huge problems are, i think, of
> political and project leadership power struggle nature, which i think is
> a sad thing.
I concur fully with this assessment.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
aminate other software? No
Is the clause necessary? In my opinion No. But it has nothing to do
with the DFSG. I think you realize this because you neglected to
mention which clause of the DFGS Clause 4 violated.
P.S. I'm not speaking for Debian or anyone else. But rather speaki
GPL or they really can comply with both. I'd be very
surpised if they worked out such an agreement with the DVD-CCA. People
who are sue other people to stop them from distributing such information
don't tend to turn around and sign an agreement with someone else to
allow them to do so i
inted
as well. Fortunately, we no longer have to worry about that. They lost
in Norway and California. I think that issue is dead.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
eme
Court, the battle is far from over.
I'd guess the DVD-CCA decided continuing to insist that CSS is a trade
secret was pointless when they were loosing the case and the case didn't
ultimately change the outcome they desired.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
broadly to apply the
operating system exception. All of which can reasonably be accepted as
valid interpretations.
I'm not sure if FSF has weighed in on this issue but I'd guess Debian
would yield to whatever their interpretation of the issue was.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
publically available.
The problem with non-free is that some things in it may not meet the
definition of publically available. For instance a tool that didn't
include the source code would not qualify, even if the binaries are
freely distributable.
IANAL, TINLA.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:07:28AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The inclusion of the GPL licensed file triggers the requirements of
> > section 2b of the GPL, which requires that the entire work be GPL'd.
>
> This i
doesn't have any
applicable patents that they own. Your wording is very similar to IBM's
2c, but then this is pretty boiler plate language.
Making the change I suggested to 3 above would make your license
acceptable as far as I can see without really changing the protection
that you're receiving under it.
I hope this helps. FYI IANAL TINLA.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
reach a resolution to this licensing problem.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
the interpretation of what
is an acceptable and not-acceptable free software license. You're free
to license your software anyway you choose. And of course Debian, and
other projects are free to reject it on this basis or whatever other
considerations are important for their project.
--
B
we
really can't come to some sort of compromise then I guess I'll just have
to look elsewhere for a JPEG-2000 impelmentation. This is not meant as
a threat. It's just the reality of the licensing situation.
Standard disclaimers apply. I'm not a lawyer nor is this legal advice.
It's based on my own lay understanding of the law. And it's mostly
based on US law which may not be entirely applicable to you since you're
in Canada.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/261.html
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
t hold a trademark on the logo.
It's somewhat difficult to use a logo without making a copy and
distributing it.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
n certify that it
is an original work? If SPI can do that they have a case of a clear
derivative work. If SPI can't do that then Debian needs a different
logo.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
t off part of the tail, but it is pretty
darn obvious that it's from the same source.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
cipation in working with the other Copyright holder to find a
solution that gives you the protection that you desire and gives us
license terms that we consider free/libre.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
kept a good
history of constributors or wrote it entirely yourself.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
g or not shipping the
code does not change your freedom to use it.
If you want to change that contact the appropriate governmental
representative.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
code and the conditional compliation option set by default to
avoid any issues with the code being missing.
I can't imagine why they wouldn't accept these improvements if someone
spent the time to submit them and I would imagine it would be beneficial
to the maintainer in the long run to do that.
--
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
40 matches
Mail list logo
