On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
> > "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not releva
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> > of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficu
arly isn't.
The interpretation you say is mandated by the GR is not "generous", it's
"false". If the only rational interpretation that can be found of the
GR is that it demands a willfully false reading of the license, so be it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUB
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
> >> But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
> >> ab
e one. According
to your reading, the GR says "we're going to willfully violate the license".
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
even distributable.
This is plain from DFSG#1. If the GR is labelling undistributable
works "free", then it is in no way orthogonal to distributability.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
chable.
A script with no license is not (generally) public domain anyway; the
presence of "all right reserved" doesn't change that one way or the other.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
file by
logging into my FTP or sniffing network traffic. They're designed largely
for that very purpose. This is prohibited from a straightforward reading
of the license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cense to retroactively
retract permissions. Here, Debian is the licensee, applying an unnatural
interpretation to try to give itself permissions it hasn't been granted.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that I have any better idea of how to proceed from this GR.
It just doesn't seem to leave any acceptable options--but that fact doesn't
improve the bad options any.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ifferent impression.
It's irresponsible and damaging for those in the FSF's position to
propagate a buggy license--for years!--without fixing it. The rationale
doesn't change that, or lessen the resulting damage.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ights reserved" * | wc -l
> 2204
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00198.html
for previous discussion (from Googling for '"all rights reserved"
debian-legal'). It's not a problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retation of the word "specification",
which includes reference implementations (which certainly are not
specifications; anyone who's implemented a file parser knows that)?
(At least this one's in the license itself, and not merely a statement
of intent from the FSF that we'
walling. So much of
this would be simpler if the FSF would fulfill their responsibility of
fixing their license, which they assumed when they begin proliferating
it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:37:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GFDL specifically says that it must "clearly and legibly identify you".
^
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
> > themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Encrypting a document (whether via GPG or HTTPS) sure seems like a technical
> > measure to obstruct the reading of copies.
>
> In the general ca
problem: license problems are not being taken seriously. The
GR casually (and, without another GR, permanently) ignores all of these
issues, saying "from now on, every issue you find in the GFDL is to be
ignored, preemptively labelled free", and probably also "any freeness
issues are automatically OK if you can find them in the GFDL". The DFSG
must now be read to allow mandating identifying yourself, making random
section headers invariant, prohibiting converting to formats the author
doesn't like, and so on.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he GFDL and looking at the
resulting freedoms, and the conclusion doesn't change.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ilar
> requirements, although the community at large does not comply with
> them.
The GPL does not require that the information be "preserved" in any way.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:34:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
>
> Oh?
>
> I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you&#
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
>
> Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
> with the ironi
nding or twisting the license; it's merely confirming a
> >straightforward interpretation.
>
> Sure. And we could decide that if you do that, we'll treat you just like
> UW with respect to Pine.
Not without another GR to override this one. The GR says the GFDL is free,
and
ed.
(The silly thing is just how worthless this clause really is. Merely
requiring source be available--you know, the preferred form for
modification--prevents any effective DRM. This ill-conceived clause
didn't even need to be there, and now Debian has to consider it free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pyright notice if they havn't actually released the work into the
public domain? They still have a copyright claim, so it seems like
a misleading copyright notice.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this list
for years.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
> > have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say "trust me, we
thought about this", but I have yet to hear the resulting rationale, if
there ever really was any.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
> >
ions and decisions.
I have trouble describing the complete prohibition of modifying a
work as a "relatively minor wart". It seems ironic to waive freedom
requirements for the FSF out of respect for its contributions to free
software.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
an but now this page seems terribly
> misleading.
In the case of documentation, sure: the FSF's notions of Free Documentation
have diverged from Debian's. Debian feels that documentation should be
held to the same standards of freedom as programs, and the FSF does not.
Feel free to lob
ithout prior written
permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I find it curious that this license--the old Apache one--simultaneously
requires an acknowledgement in the documentation, and prohibits mention
in advertisement. They want credit, but not too much credit?)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
> > something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant e
ecause that case is considered inherently incompatible with Free Software
goals). I think it's a better one than "convenience", though.
> No, it's desirable because it's free. Convenience is subjective. Freedom is
> absolute.
Freedom is subjective, too; there are a
eement" with the FSF.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00493.html
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w" qualifier. For
license evaluation purposes, we assume that every restriction is enforcable
(unless it's directly relevant, eg. severability).
[1] Examples are probably unnecessary, but for the hell of it,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/msg00285.html [grep for
"fraud"]
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t to be told so. (It's disappointing that you respond in this
tone in response to Don's forbearance.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
here
is here? Do you have a response to his actual point (that "convenience"
arguments are a weak attempt to ignore non-free restrictions, which can be
applied to almost anything)?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licenses don't get
to say "this code can not be used in toll booths"--neither directly nor
indirectly.
You can't sidestep and ignore the DFSG by changing prohibitions into
impractical conditions.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n the GPLv2: it's perfectly fine for a free
license to offer non-free alternatives alongside the free ones. (You know
that, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;I don't care what you think" seem at odds. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d vice versa.
That's the crux of the problem: these licenses, targetting a specific
use, tend to make it impractical or impossible to use the code for a
very different purpose. Having several of them for different purposes
doesn't solve that problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRI
are not.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; to "EXPRESSED".)
Is it the lack of "AND CONTRIBUTORS" that's the problem? The only difference
I might guess is that the PHP license's version may not disclaim warranty
for some people, but they're free not to do that, right? (But probably
didn't i
this Agreement
against the Licensor shall be brought in the courts of the
jurisdiction in which the defendant resides.
(I'm not sure, however, if "resides" is a legally meaningful term, when
the defendant isn't an individual.)
[1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:07:08AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
> > of satisfying this for the "voicemail", "toll booth", etc. cases.
> > (Though the
ple may turn your software into anything they want
(even stuff that you don't like), and that you're allowed to say "give
everyone else the same freedoms that you received".
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interpretation isn't even close. As I understand it, OSI uses the
OSD as a literal set of rules--a "definition", which is in stark contrast
to Debian's use of the DFSG as a set of guidelines.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sense, though, if you work from the assumption
that Marco's opinion can't possibly be in the minority.
Anyway, sorry for the noise. I figured I'd get my grumping about Marco done
with for a while, and do it where it'd be threaded away with someone else's.
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
were depending
on the software, so as not to "bait and switch".
Of course, a license that doesn't allow commercial use is non-free.
(Algorithms are not subject to copyright, though.)
IANAL.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usy
interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is
somewhat amusing ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
since none of it is modified except for the kernel, and that
particular code is available on our webpage too). That's for the arcade
operator (the owner of the machine). I have no idea how one might satisfy
a requirement that the *users* be given GPL-like access to the source.
--
Gle
hine, and is interacting with the software. (That's
my "common sense, intuitive" answer.) According to your clause, I'd need
to provide source to the players, as if I'd sent them object code. Is that
what you intended? It doesn't seem practical to me.
All of my examples were of this nature. It easy to argue that a driver
tossing quarters at an automated toll booth is a user interacting with the
software, and so on. If I used code from your webserver in my voicemail
system, what reasonable (eg. free) options would I have to comply with
the license?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and participate when I have
something to add, but if it's on another list I probably won't follow
it at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
elf-service gas stations,
toll booths, voicemail, arcade machines? Software interacts with users
in every way imaginable ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--
,
> he is not certain about the wording, so I come here to ask your opinion on
> the subject.
I know of no common license by the abbreviation "BSDDL" (and neither does
Google). Please attach the license you're referring to.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
that we need to *at least* discuss this a bit more and and a bit
> more widely before we risk writing off some large future subset of GPL
> works as being non-free.
It was just re-discussed recently, around the GPLv3 draft, I believe.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
ing
the use of the X11/MIT license, rather than using a custom license.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g00213.html
See under "immediately obtain copies". The response was brief, since it's
a whole subject unto itself that had been discussed at extreme length, but
should give you an idea of the class of problems it presents.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
opers significantly.
(Subversion is certainly not "on the edge", by the way; it's a stable,
solid, production-quality, 98%-complete replacement for CVS.)
None of which is terribly important. Unless we're compelled against our
will by sheer volume of fundamentally critical works
ently...
You're saying "this is onerous enough to make it non-free" (aka "it's a
battle worth fighting") "because it's non-free". That's not a very
persuasive argument. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software has a substantial number of people
both of the copyleft view and the permissive view, this is the only way
we can all get along. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
u to outlaw the entire class of
"*PHP*" names. I agreed in principle, but with reservations, which
was the nature of my reply. I don't see any other interpretation of
the above text, so if I'm way off on my reading, please clarify.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t making the source available?
GPLv2 does not. The GPLv3 draft attempts to. In my opinion, it does
not do so in a satisfactory way, causing various practical problems.
You can find discussions on the list archives, eg.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00213.html
--
Glenn Mayn
e patch clauses,
there are so few of them that it's probably not that big a battle, but
if you do want to fight that fight, I don't think "PHP" is any worse
than "Apache", so the objection should be extended across the others
and not single out PHP.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bly requested by them. You may not charge any
This is unacceptable, for similar reasons.
> 4.14 Termination
>
> This Licence and the rights granted to You by Squiz.Net, in particular
> those rights granted by Clauses 1.1 and 1.2, will terminate
> automatically if:
>
> (a)
n't think we have
enough experience in this area to formulate a general policy yet.
[1] Subversion's actual renaming clause is in copyright, not trademark.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ss your
next argument will be unmodifiable license texts, just to complete the set.
(I'll stop wasting bandwidth with descriptions of exasperation now. I'd
have held to my last attempt and not replied, but my exasperation quota
filled and it had to drain somewhere. Sorry. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ntless.
It's unfortunate that you place so little value on free documentation,
but that's your choice. I hope the free software community at large
ultimately disagrees with you.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ratings. It's also to "prevent confusion", but not
regarding the product's origin. Of course, the same principle applies;
I don't think trademark prevents me from saying "this is the ESRB logo
indicating 'Teen': ".
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is is not the case with most other
"collateral damage", such as SMS, where there is no such underlying conflict
(though, of course, there is probably coincidental overlap between these two
examples).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
de, Debian uses lots of trademarks, such as "Linux", which are enforced,
but under more lenient terms.
I'm not sure about "no commercial use of these trademarks". People sell
Debian CDs all the time, and I don't know if that qualifies.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e software it prints isn't
"foo"? Now it's impossible to make a functional drop-in equivalent
without identifying differently. Same problem with any number of things
required under the assumption that they're not functional: you could
scan "strings" output for "
tion, with all the
> > flaws
> > that implies. Debian isn't, with all the benefits and flaws that implies.
>
> Let's face it: Debian wouldn't exist without the FSF.
Maybe not. Neither would a lot of other things. That's a strawman that
doesn't cha
;, but that's a whole
new ugly bag of worms.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
went too far. (It's always a danger sign when licenses
start talking at so technical a level as to mention things like
"filenames" at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
> > software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
&g
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
uot;Foo Inc" is not allowed. The
> unit to consider here is the word and not the letter.
If a font name is "Times Roman", I can't create a derivative named
"Glenn Roman"; worse, if it's "Times New Roman", I can't name it "Glenn's
New
is only non-free
for Adobe.
> I don't think Adobe would want to expose themselves to that kind
> of risk, so I think we can take this license at face value.
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don
hoice of venue are non-free.
Raul's definition doesn't help one come to either conclusion, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:56:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
> > proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
he two issues are unrelated?
I believe choice of law is uncontroversially considered DFSG-free, as
long as that choice of law doesn't actually cause the terms of the
license to become non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the license. Any condition to receiving the license is
a restriction on the permissions granted by that license, making choice of
venue very much encompassed by the DFSG and within the scope of Free
Software's concern.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nal" is free?
Sorry, but your arguments are becoming so strange and incomprehensible that
I don't know how to respond to them, beyond expressing my bewilderment ...
(No restriction *in the license of the software* is "outside the software";
when you say "to have the right to use, copy and modify this program, you
must agree to this condition", the condition immediately and obviously
becomes Free Software's concern.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
doesn't have
negative side-effects. For example, in principle, I don't mind the
anti-DMCA clauses. In practice, of course, they need to be scrutinized
to be sure they don't have unintended negative consequences.
It's those negative consequences that can make the licens
stem cell research".
When a restriction is non-free, there are almost always better arguments
to be found, unless the restriction actually is of the above forms and
falls under the spirit of DFSG#5/6.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The choice of venue clause is very clearly a restriction on modification,
since accepting it is a condition to receiving permission to modify the
software. The question isn't whether the DFSG covers that (it clearly
does), but whether that condition is acceptable.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ues
me in my own venue, and I countersue, I have to take it up in an a
completely different venue. I just don't know enough about venue selection
to answer this case.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Choice of venue
attempts to override this mechanism, to always favor the copyright holder.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading claims).
Personally--speaking for my own particular case--I don't care about
flying around the world; flying from Massachusetts to California is
quite too far.
--
Glenn Ma
rs (which, for clarity,
UW didn't do, AFAIK). In that case, choice of venue clauses may place an
undue burden on licensees; even if the interpretation doesn't hold up in
court, they have to travel to prove it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
carefully reevaluate
whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
"agreement" with the FSF.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n) the worst consession the DFSG has made,
and using it as a wedge to try to get even more onerous restrictions
allowed. (That means that not only are we suffering for the consession
made, we're suffering people using it to try to push even further.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we should allow this, too--and wait,
now we should allow this other thing too, it's just a little more!", that
will destroy Debian as a free system. (And cover texts would not be a
small concession at all, but a very big one.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be effective (and
taken in context of the interpretation of the law, may not be untrue).
If the authors of the statement have done some research into this (which I
would hope), it might be interesting to hear their rationale in more detail,
even if it's "we don't know if this will
effective, the
real "security mechanism" becomes the law itself: by pretending
that the obsolete mechanism is still "effective", the deterrent
becomes the threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
However--and this may be significant--the text is colored red.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and
evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while
under the influence of the courts' private version of the language.
(Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
1 - 100 of 1195 matches
Mail list logo
