east expect... :-(
This doesn't matter, it's still free. If you derive GPL software, you can't
violate the terms of the GPL license and yet that GPL software still
remains Free by the DFSG definition. Same with a renamed ion derivative, if
you derive from a renamed ion and violate
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> > glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> > no value other than being a deba
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:05:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that
> > the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as
> > xfonts-u
get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a
say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of
the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
x27;s critical to the way people expect an X server to
work and there's no Free alternative. This obviously needs fixing (I'm
hoping someone who's interested in this problem would put the time in to
contacting SGI and trying to politely get it relicensed) and it's a far
more import
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:13:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> >> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
ee license for the papers to be acceptable. That they are mandating
this is acceptible and is to be encouraged for an event connected with
Debian.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> David Nusinow writes:
> > I don't feel that this argument was ever effectively countered. There's no
> > explicit cost or discrimination such as "send me five dollars" or "no
> > black
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:30:47PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
> > software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
> > meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
freedoms. Nor is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying
non-freeness in terms of basic freedoms has been done to my personal
satisfaction in this case, but the fact that people constantly are falling
back on the cost arg
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
> > If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> > > to n
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
> &
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
> > the freedoms we expect from software.
>
> Yes they do. You have t
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:46:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
>
> > I think we need to consider the point
> > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause
> > may be important for a progra
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:56:34AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> ** David Nusinow ::
> > If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
> > If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
> > travel no matter what, and thus pay fo
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please use a non-broken mail program.
> Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
> useful information.
Thank you Mr. Pedant. If you'
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:31:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point
> > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may b
27;s author be forced to take on the burden of such a
fee if they need to defend their copyright.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g unless I want to go
> to Disneyland.
>
> (*) I am obviously supposing you, the plaintiff, is an US citizen
> and resident.
Please use a non-broken mail program.
How does a choice of venue clause compel you to go to the US then? The US
courts still can't force your country
this?
> >
> > Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
>
> Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y.
How so? The only thing I see is that it strengthens the plaintiff's
argument to actually have the case tried in a US court. I doubt this would
be a very weak argument to begin with though.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ng address this?
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:50:56AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
> > This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
> > specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
&
. This not even borderline
case is the only thing that stands in the way of having every single nvidia
owner use the binary nvidia drivers which I can not support in *any way at
all*.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ommitted. You are now attributed in the administrivia section.
Thanks for the great doc.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
let alone follow the flow of your argument and read the original cases that
you cite.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ense,
but so far it looks fine to me. As it is, I don't see any difference between
this and any other vendor not releasing hardware specs and yet a Free driver
exists. Not a good thing, but not non-free either.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ting the source to
your driver and not providing specs to your hardware. It seems, from reading
Mike's mail, that the latter is more the case than the former. I'm not sure how
I feel about that with respect to the DFSG, but since the hardware is not
something that Debian distributes I&#x
yright holder sues in
their home district when the license has a choice of venue clause? It sounds to
me like it's almost a no-op.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
ution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart
collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these
collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the
only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a
far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself.
- David Nusinow
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
--
To U
ution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart
collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these
collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the
only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a
far more polit
s still possible to package for contrib ... right ?
Only if you split the non-free stuff out from the Free stuff. As it stands,
you're probably going to have to put it in non-free.
- David Nusinow
on't have volunteer lawyers to do this work for us, we make due with
what we've got, the same way we do everything else.
- David Nusinow
er again (along with my
answers) so I don't want to comment on them right now.
Anyhow, that's what little I've got so far. I'm hoping to attack this in a more
concrete manner, with actual licenses and writing after release.
- David Nusinow
rence between charity and tax? Tax is a
> requirement, charity is freely given.
That's not a fair example because all the code he has ever written is not a
derived work from the licensed code. Just because there are requirements of
people receiving the license to give up something does not make it non-free.
- David Nusinow
ncy to help people find them. If it seems to
> work, I'll look for a better home next month.
Both of those are great choices. Thank you very much for doing this.
- David Nusinow
to
> be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the
> DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help.
Actually, I agree with the GNU FDL position, and I even submitted a draft
version of a small portion of it to Manoj while he was in the writing phase of
it. :-)
- David Nusinow
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
> > trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
>
> So we should be will
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> >[...]
> As should be obvious, I don't understand t
in the announcement email
with the license and package names include a quick summary of the contested
points?
- David Nusinow
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
> I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
> then I&#
east to me).
One possibility for something like -legal-announce would be to post an initial
mail like "Someone has requested that foo license be reviewed for package bar.
This license also applies to packages bas, etc". This would let people
subscribe to a low volume list, and if anything they're interested in goes
under review, they could join the discussion. I could see posting these things
to -devel or -devel-announce, but this strikes me as rather ugly.
- David Nusinow
sh I'd been following the
choice of venue debate more closely to pose decent answers myself, but Sven's
fillibuster made that impossible.
- David Nusinow
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:43:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
> > interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > DD's
> > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
> > that's
> > grounded in one interpretat
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:02:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claimi
h the rest of the project, and I know I'm not the only one. My opinion on
the silence is a reflection of this lack of communication, not some hand-waving
fake telepathy[1].
- David Nusinow
[1] I was happy to see the Dictator Test announced in DWN. I think that's a very
positive step in the right direction.
ain that there isn't clear consensus on this." is an
overstatement? Sounds pretty benign to me. Again, keeping score of a few active
-legal participants isn't enough to claim clear consensus for the whole project
on whether something is non-free.
- David Nusinow
ot even aware of the issue. This sort
of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG is
exactly what's caused so much ire within the rest of the project towards this
list.
- David Nusinow
document, such as 6 and 8, and that
adding a choice of venue clause guideline would fit with those just fine. That
said, I'd rather any sort of amendment be written according to the real meat of
the issue, rather than simply saying "The license can't have a choice of venue
clause."
- David Nusinow
CD when purchasing the thing, so you can sell it in
pieces if you like, the same way you could break a CD in half and sell the
halves if you really wanted to do so (and could find some genius to pay you for
the privledge.) This seems like a critical difference. Maybe a different
analogy is necessary, because I like the idea very much.
- David Nusinow
modifications
non-free, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that the basic concept is
universally non-free.
I don't believe that forced upstream distribution is necessarily free mind you,
just that the extringent requirements in the actual license need to be taken in
to account, which is what I meant by "level of detail" in an earlier mail.
Ultimately, I think the Desert Island Test needs refinement, because as it is,
it strikes me as rather crude.
- David Nusinow
e, can I require that?
No, because this obviously fails DFSG 7.
> It's not just that I think these are hard questions. It's that I
> think many of them have no free answer. That makes me think that the
> question which opens this can of worms -- forced distribution -- is
> probably non-free.
I don't think it opens any can of worms greater than the one we've already
opened by allowing copyleft.
- David Nusinow
stribute to, if
> you like) if I do not make the modifications to the software because I would
> be forced to send my modifications upstream.
Much the same as if you won't modify the software because it's GPL instead of
BSD. This doesn't make the requirement non-free.
- David Nusinow
cise the rights guaranteed to be available by the DFSG for a free
> licence, then that licence is not free.
But the idea of sending changes downstream also constrains freedoms, just in a
different fashion. I think this argument is invalid because while you may have
the freedom to associate with only certain people under the GPL, you do not
have the freedom to associate with them in exactly the way you want.
- David Nusinow
e for foo, then that
counts as discrimination. Getting confirmation of intent from the author is
probably going to be very important in these cases. The desert island test
definitely does not demonstrate effective discrimination in this fashion though.
- David Nusinow
n of the license, a fee I must pay in
> order to distribute modifications, then it is no longer free software.
This brings us back full circle to the definition of a fee. I still contend that
by forcing downstream distribution of source, the GPL imparts a fee of its own,
and yet we accept that as free.
- David Nusinow
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
> > fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
&g
re not discriminating against castaways any more than the GPL is
discriminating against people who somehow lose all copies of the source to
their modifications after distributing modified binaries.
While licenses that don't require this are perhaps "more free" I don't feel
that they fail the DFSG.
- David Nusinow
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
> > fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
>
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> &
r
> in order to supply the initial author with copies on request.
So is the timeframe (i.e. forever) important?
- David Nusinow
everybody else.
Then how does this differ from the QPL exactly? If you fail to comply with the
terms of the license you're in violation of the copyright. You never made a
promise to the lessor with the QPL by your interpretation of the word, so I see
no difference here between the two licenses that would allow one to be non-free.
- David Nusinow
ven have to
> know about the GPL in order to do this legally.
But your behavior is still constrained in that (in the case of the GPL or QPL)
if you modify the software and distribute it you must agree to the terms of the
license. I don't understand how this is not a promise.
- David Nusinow
for editing to those
who the developer themselves distribute to. The fee may not be payed directly
to the original licensor, but isn't it still a fee by this definition?
- David Nusinow
vote reflects that
this opinion is shared amongst the majority of DD's. I think the idea of
questioning mozilla's license, among others, triggers the fear that we will
never release because of the constant wrangingling over freeness. The fact that
this sort of wrangling is done based on tests (Chinese Dissident, etc) which
few are aware of makes the situation worse.
- David Nusinow
probably
> documentation and other text data), then xfree86 should also be
> acknowlegded in the same way.
Please see the disucssion on debian-legal about the X-Oz license for
discussion about this, specifically Branden's message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg
potentially use it. Commentary is appreciated. The original HTML text of
this license is located at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html for any who
are interested.
- David Nusinow
---
All the source code and source patches that X-Oz
72 matches
Mail list logo
