> Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
> list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
> first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Not only that, but he reaches out to help you personally and does an
exce
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 07:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> In addition, I'd like to note that's what CC0 is for, really. It has
> some neat fall-back clauses that trigger in the event a jurisdiction
> doesn't allow for public domain works as such, and also releases
> database rights[1] which some
Timo,
I'm not sure why a open source license wouldn't work?
In any case, here are some comments.
> 2.2. Duties and responsibilities of the Licensee
>
> Through reasonable means suitable to the distribution medium
> or method which is used in conjunction with a product containing
> data or a
Linus,
So, it's my opinion that there are two core requirements for
free software: the license needs to be free and the whole work
must be included. What follows is my personal opinion, and
I'm not a lawyer, a representative of Debian Legal, or providing
any sort of legal advice.
Whole Work
---
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would rather suggest a license more in line with public domain
> works, such as Creative Commons zero license, the SQLite public
> domain dedication, or the GNU all-permissive license.
For software works, I don't think this group shoul
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Not in the least. Releasing something under GPLv2+ means the
> recipient gets to *choose* which version of the GPL they're
> complying with, including when they create derivative works.
I've not studied GPLv2 at all, I was using GPLv3 s
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012, at 01:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required
> > creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations
> > in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual
> > calls by translation submitt
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 02:09 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Now Petter had the idea to feed this into google translations,
> using http://freetranslation.mobi and committed the result
> back into the debian-edu-doc svn repository.
I don't think you can do this.
#1 Translations are copyrigh
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 05:27 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
> >
> > | without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into
> > | a separate written license agreement for such enhancements
> >
>
Charles,
I'm not a lawyer, but this looks like a one-sided consortium
assignment agreement disquised as a BSD license. It's not
even remotely free software. Let's read the license.
| You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any
| enhancements to Internet2 or its contributors.
You'r
> I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes.
Although you are not required to provide them your enhancements,
you are required to provide Internet2 licensing rights that are
not granted to others should you wish to make the source code for
your derivative work generally
Raoul,
This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt:
> then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members
for that reason, I don't think it's free
Clark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I am not sure your addition non-permissive term really follows
> what is allowed by clause 7b...
...
> Please note the word "preservation".
You are correct. I apologize for the distraction. So that
I'm tracking an actual submission for
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn/blob/master/GPL-FMN-TERM
> describes itself as "an additional permissive term", but seems to
> actually be an additional requirement.
Quite right. I was reading section 7 incorrectly and had
mentally
I apologize, the repository is https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 04:31 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> I have approval to release HTSQL (http://htsql) under the AGPLv3
> license so long as it contains an attribution requirement as
> permitted by section 7 of the
I have approval to release HTSQL (http://htsql) under the AGPLv3
license so long as it contains an attribution requirement as
permitted by section 7 of the GPL. We also plan to release some
other components of our RexDB work under a more liberal
permissive license with a similar attribution requir
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> 11 * additional restriction that results may published only if
> 12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and
> 13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report.
I think with professional legal assistance the inten
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 07:41 PM, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
> My biggest concern is that since it allows for small modifications,
> what would protect us, as the original authors, from someone taking
> our source, modifying a single line, then re-releasing under a
> modified GPLv3 that says that in
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 06:10 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works
> will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to
> take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore
> the way the Translation Project d
Jeff,
Thank you for thoughts on this. Pursuant to Ben's request,
the discussion of this hypothetical license (well, a 2nd pass)
has been moved to license-disc...@opensource.org
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07871.html
Best,
Clark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 02:28 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The critical aspect here is whether author attributions are
> required to be preserved in the material, or also in the ALNs.
> Retaining them in the material is clearly reasonable, but I
> don't believe that forcing them to be present in t
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 09:36 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'll mention, again, that this forum is not appropriate for general
> discussion about licenses in the absence of an actual existing work that
> is proposed for (or already in) Debian.
Hi Ben.
I'm working to open source a medical informatics
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
> to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently
> visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice,
> and (2) tells the user th
Is there a debian-legal position on "Appropriate Legal Notices"
aspect of the GPLv3. Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively,
the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License ("CPAL").
I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates
with with those in my organization who are
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> > What happens if my application gets "smart", it looks first
> > for the proprietary dynamic link library; and if it isn't
> > there, it uses a web service wrapper for that library? Would
> > this move an application from "contrib" to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 02:02 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
| The question of freeness or non-freeness in Debian has
| to do with licensing, and nothing to do with the uses to
| which software is put. If the program accessing the
| "non-free" service is free software, it goes in main, period.
On Monday, December 05, 2011 10:51 PM, "Andrei Popescu"
wrote:
> On Lu, 05 dec 11, 21:55:28, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> > "The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to
> > work with the Debian distribution, but which require software
> > outside of the distribution to either b
On Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:29 PM, "David Prévot"
wrote:
> are we going to pretend that apt is non-free because we can't
> use it on a desert Island, since there is no ftp.desertisland.debian.org
> official mirror available?
There's a big difference between requiring a service
that has a free
On Sunday, December 04, 2011 3:55ser PM, "Joey Hess"
wrote:
> > Perhaps they should be moved to 'contrib' category, because they
> > interface non-free web-services. Debian's 'main' repository seems not
> > the right place for any such web APIs.
>
...
> > How far down this line until it belongs in
- Original message -
From: "Clark C. Evans"
To: license-disc...@opensource.org
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:38:20 -0500
Subject: a Free Island Public License?
Please find for your amusement and hopeful commentary
a different take on what it means to be Free Software.
FREE ISL
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011, "Ben Finney" wrote:
> I think your desired effects for the license are not compatible with
> software freedom, as discussed earlier.
I don't think this is a fair characterization. The effects
that I desire and the philosophy of free software are not
incompatible. I thin
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:11:29 + Simon McVittie wrote:
> > The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must.
>
> My summary is somewhat similar: please just use the GNU GPL,
> and nothing more restrictive than that (I don't thin
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, "Hugo Roy" wrote:
> I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
> If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly
> not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' l,
> definition as well.
The GPL provides c
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:35 AM, "Osamu Aoki"
wrote:
> This definition of "Major Component" may include non-free binary blob in
> non-free kernel modules. For example, ethernel device driver, HDD RAID
> driver, 3D Video driver, ...
If the work requires a particular non-free system library
> > I'm looking for a license that discriminates against proprietary
> > platforms. I'm open to any specific effects that may do this, subject,
> > of course, to what is consistent with Debian's values.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the above stated intention is not compatible
> with software freedom.
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 2:59 AM, "Hugo Roy"
wrote:
> Le vendredi 25 novembre 2011 à 12:04 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
> > I understand that it's traditional for Free Software to impose
> > restrictions primarily as a condition of distribution;
>
>
On Thursday, November 24, "Josselin Mouette" wrote:
> Actually, it is already widely accepted that the system
> libraries exception does not apply to packages in Debian,
> so a license that would be the same as the GPL but without
> this exception wouldn't make a single difference for us.
I p
On Friday, November 25, "Ben Finney" wrote:
> "Clark C. Evans" writes:
> > I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would support, that
> > actively encourages use of free platforms; and consequently restricts
> > proprietary platforms.
>
On Thursday, November 24, "David Prévot" wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 14:08, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> > I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would
> > support, that actively encourages use of free platforms;
> > and consequently restricts proprietary plat
I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would
support, that actively encourages use of free platforms;
and consequently restricts proprietary platforms.
While GNU/Linux is the dominant server operating system,
it lags on the desktop. Many of my colleagues who were
just a few years ago r
40 matches
Mail list logo
