Hi,
After bumping into some license incompatibilities (between GPL and
OpenSSL) a few years ago, I've been using the BSD license.
A recent discussion made me consider the following scheme:
GPL license version 3 or higher with the following exemption:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Francesco Poli wrote:
> What is not clear to me is: if "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes"
> are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs,
> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise b
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
> licenses.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
> Just saying that they are "in spirit the same as GPL" is *not* a
>
Ben Finney concluded:
> So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can
> redistribute on any media, even those that implement access
> restrictions.
Aha, That means my previous assertion was wrong:
> So while the [anti-TPM] method [in CC and GPLv3] is rather different,
> t
Thanks for all the feedback!
The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0,
even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize
the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this
discussion: it
text!) and tell me how this
is different from the creative commons anti-TPM clause.
What is the correct conclusion:
1. This is the same. Both licenses are non-free
2. This is the same. Both licenses are free
3. This is clearly totally different. The difference is
Confusingly yours,
On 22-8-2004 14:58, "Andrew Suffield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 02:51:39PM +0200, Igor Stroh wrote:
>> could someone check this licence[1]? I believe it's somewhat BSD-like,
>> but I'm not quite sure. It's the licence of python-gtk2-tutorial. Since
>> there's no descript
On 18-8-2004 08:22, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
>> project leader can do it by fiat (it is a simple thing, after all) or
>> you can do it through your resolution process. Tell us when you are done.
>
> Any
A bit off-topic reply.
On 13-8-2004 13:18, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded to my mail:
>> Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
>> scientist.
>
> Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
> "scientific ethics" and "science and society" topics as w
On 13-8-2004 06:33, "Josh Triplett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What annoys me propably most is that this simple licence is non-GPL
>> compatible, and any software written with this licence is not allowed to be
>> linked against GPL-software:
>>This code may be freely modified, copied and di
gainst non-GPL code, the author
*implicitly* gives the exception that the program may indeed be linked to
this particular non-GPL code.
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often, would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
I am willing to put down a draft of questions. I have proposed this as a
side note in a private mail, and was pointed that this not a Debian-specific
que
license isn't free; just that the GPL isn't the
> only license placing annoying restrictions here.
I agree. Thanks.
I guess it is just that in my limited vision, GPL was 'top of the bill' and
was great because it 'allowed free software'. I now realise that t
strictions are overrated in
our society. I knew that, but I'm currently disappointed that this also
applies to open software. To me it is not in the spirit of "free" as
mentioned in the Debian Social Contract. Oh well, I'll survive.
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
(being very disappointed in the GPL now)
On 9-8-2004 18:58, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
>> to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, a
On 09-08-2004 18:25, "Brian Thomas Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
>> co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
>
> Yes -- the rest of the copyright holders. Bug the Samba/libiconv
> folks if you like, but
I'll check this assertion by examining the header files,
compiling them, and by forcefully removeing libssl.a and libcrypto.a from
/usr/lib before compiling netatalk.
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00173.html
If this statement is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please
let me know immediately!
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
--
Never ask a man what kind of computer he owns. If it's a Mac, he'll tell
you. If not, why embarrass him?
> On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself
>> [...] then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
>> gnutls.
>
> Fine. If you choose not to help others, that's your choic
://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00173.html
If this statement is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please
let me know immediately!
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
On 09-08-2004 14:18, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know. I would probably look at porting to gnutls if no-one has
> tried that yet.
Yes, I've seen the suggestion before. It seems like a non-option to me.
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which is of
co
ent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
I take it that it is not possible to put a source-only (no-binary)
distribution) in the main section of Debian?
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
[Who is trying very hard to refrain myself from make *very* saracastic
remarks about lawyers who make incomp
s. So:
what would be a possible next move? Maybe just put it in Sarge, and ask
FSF to sue you to create legal precedent? :-)
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
[rant mode on]
PS: to play the devils advocate on this list: is this [EMAIL PROTECTED]&$(%$
really
necessary for me as an end-u
23 matches
Mail list logo
