source code available on the same "medium"
(server), rather than with a written offer to provide source code, but
I think the spirit -- particularly given the GPLv3's added section to
address peer-to-peer technology, which did not really exist when GPLv2
was written -- would
n the field of endeavor known as
distributing derived software, and the scope of this clause appears to
be the same. To me, it seems strictly more permissive than most
copyleft provisions, and on that basis I don't see a DFSG problem.
Michael Poole (neither Debian developer nor lawye
oes that and (b) these software
packages use that file instead of the current one, the license in the
current file is very relevant.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg writes:
>>
>> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
>> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't pr
Nicolas Alvarez writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
>> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
>> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
>
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get con
n Debian have choice-of-venue license clauses does
not in itself make those clauses DFSG-compliant.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ry was more than enough for me. (Setting aside
the cost of retaining a lawyer in a jurisdiction with slightly different
laws than I'm familiar with, the three-hour time zone difference made it
a pain to coordinate things without disrupting my working schedule.
IMO, software users don't
you mean by "patent protection". It is not clear
to me what kind of protection you think the GPL or LGPL provided that
the MIT license does not provide. Similarly, the meaning of "fail
inspection" is not clear. This all sounds like FUD to me.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRI
archive. Depending on whether a small data set
can be used to generate a default model, having a large-input-data
model in non-free may imply that the executable software belongs in
contrib rather than in main.
Michael Poole
(Neither a lawyer nor a DD.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-re
products for US
governments in reference to non-copyright restrictions -- export
controls, sensitive or classified information, proprietary content,
and so forth. Because of that, I would not consider it a reliable
statement about the applicable copyright license.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
lity of choice of venue
and fee-shifting clauses are occasionally argued over). Anthony
DeRobertis's post was part of a lengthy discussion[3] that may be
useful reference.
Michael Poole
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
[2]- http://lists.debian.org/debi
mpatible license and/or a notice that makes it clear whether
they think the mappings are protected by copyright.
Michael Poole (IANAL, IANADD, TINLA)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Michael Poole (not a lawyer, not a Debian Developer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he complete source code -- the work as a
whole, including build scripts -- must be licensed under the terms of
the GPL. Reading it otherwise requires over-parsing the license or
picking things out of context. To borrow a phrase, most of us do not
have the political clout to successfully argue that the truth "depends
on what the meaning of 'is' is".
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Most computer-literate English speakers in the world use "software"
>> to mean "computer program" rather than "information"
>
> Perhaps, but that's not very relevant
ion and results from a computer. Is there some earlier
use of the word that is broader?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
scribe a set of
things that many more people call "intellectual property". Most
computer-literate English speakers in the world use "software" to mean
"computer program" rather than "information" -- especially when that
information is not stored digitally
That is my conclusion and I would use that rule for myself. I am not
a lawyer, so I cannot offer legal advice to anyone else, and the
standard other disclaimers apply.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lisp is distributed in byte-compiled form (which is not
the case for standalone Debian packages), section 3's "mere
aggregation" language seems to apply.
It is polite and advisable to follow the author's wishes to the extent
that doing so is practical, but right now I see no reason to think
that any elisp author wishes his GPLv2-only elisp to not be used with
a GPLv3-licensed Emacs.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter S Galbraith writes:
>>> Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
>>> presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
>>> saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
>>> library?
>>
>> That is not at all what he said. T
of
several programs that implement that interface, A probably is not a
derivative work of B.
In this case, there are older emacsen -- distributed under licenses
other than the GPLv3 -- that provide the interfaces needed by most or
all of the elisp in question. It is clearly absurd to say that a work
-- like the FSF's software
freedoms -- is ultimately meant to help the end user make the most out
of software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rsonally) would be wary of taking anyone else's word on crypto
export controls.
You might be able to find and read the export restrictions on your
own, but retaining a lawyer is the safe bet since the lawyer would
know either how the law in the field is applied or the limits of their
own kno
: If, for a modern packaging system, a compiler is "essential"
but the packaging system is not, the FSF needs to have its head
re-examined.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ven person or action) to a mailing
list and representing someone else in court?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(such as
over-broad patent defense clauses) have been considered fees.
Concessions necessary to exercise software freedoms have not.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
draw any number of
examples from world politics; Debian politics are not so different.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
post the patches somewhere for your (or other maintainers') benefit?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but -- contrary to the usage
recommendation contained in the FDL itself -- could not find a
statement as to whether it contains any invariant sections.
[1]- http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/emacs.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kern Sibbald writes:
> On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that
>> dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is
>> not available to Debian ("
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
>> ECC.
>>
>> > And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
>>
&
not give that much
insight into how free software licenses should work.
(2) This is an example of how normal rules on venue can reach results
preferable to those under unilaterally selected or convenient venue
(since SCO would love to have all its lawsuits venued in Utah).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e distribution in the same directory tree on a
particular server, so -- the usual line of reasoning goes -- it would
be inconsistent to interpret "accompany" one way at the start of
section 3 and a different way at the end of section 3.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
ific citations, and asked if
you would take seriously someone who made analogous errors of fact in
a different area. You asserted in another post that -legal was often
not taken seriously by the rest of Debian; it seems fair to point out
why there may be similar feelings in the other direction, at least as
far as legal analysis goes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
> The debian-legal checklist:
>
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstre
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>
>> > I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
>> > for not complying with debootstrap's license, and
to sue people
and/or the results of lawsuits are more predictable. Is that truly
acceptable in a free software license?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Jun 02, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
>> particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
>> for the contrary position have been m
ormation, and is even less so when that
> poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue.
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ke them, or
an appropriate vehicle to enforce the licensor's views on the issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ments and clarifications, with no
impact on DFSG conformance.
Various boost libraries are already in Debian under this license[1].
Why ask -legal to verify its DFSG freeness?
[1]-
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/boost/boost_1.33.1-10/libboost-date-time1.33.1.copyright
which mentions
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit :
>> > Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
>> > ignore it.
>>
>> Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
>>
e made that barrier rather high in practice.
I'm not a fan of judging licenses free because Debian thinks certain
clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is
buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some
point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm.
nses. In any case, the
copyright owner for this software really should talk to the FSF about
getting permission to use the text of the GPL in a "GPL+limitations"
type of license.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should be construed when the copyright owners' terms are impossible to
satisfy. The safe thing is to not distribute or modify any work like
that.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ted. When
analyzing an arbitrary license, I assume that any villain might
contribute code to, or buy rights to code in, Debian. However, the
Mozilla Foundation seems unlikely to sell the mark or become evil
before the following Debian release comes out and removes the
"firefox" transitional p
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:58, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg writes:
>> > What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as "a browser made
>> > by the Mozilla Foundation"? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox
ng the "Firefox" name without approval from the
Mozilla Foundation, but I do not think the law requires Debian to move
away so quickly that users are left without a working web browser.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:08, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Alleged possibilities of confusion abounds. There is quite a
>> difference between that and actual likelihood of confusion,
>> particularly no one has cited any holdings that appear to be
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
>> use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
>> confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
>&
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:39, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Trademark law is not strictly analogous to patent or copyright law.
>>
>> Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
>> use of new marks, but to stem cert
y a question of owning and controlling
rights (for a limited period), it is incorrect to continually treat
trademark law like those others in hope that you will convince us
otherwise.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
redirection that happens with a transition
package, I think this is the proper basis of analysis. Transition
packages are not "disclaimers" of any sort; they are hints to a person
or tools acting on that person's behalf.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
pgp
virtual package, but it seems that your argument applies to it as
well.
The term for "made up term" you were looking for is fanciful mark.
However, if you enumerate the features provided by both Iceweasel and
Mozilla Firefox, I suspect that most consumers who identify anything
n non-main packages.
To the same extent, device drivers in main do not depend on non-main
packages (or on firmware for the devices they talk to).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-free. This is consistent with the much more recent work to move
firmware-loading kernel drivers out of main. Are IM client programs
exempt from this, or should bugs be filed with appropriate severity?
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1998/06/msg00023.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Ben Finney writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ben Finney writes:
>> > Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the
>> > absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes
>> > useless without
arkedly different in the absence of
certain proprietary network server software -- IM client programs come
to mind. Do those bits need to be removed from main?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, the program
still runs and interfaces to the hardware per spec. If the hardware
fails to perform -- because it the firmware was not loaded, because a
resistor is burnt out, or whatever -- it would be nice to know why
that becomes a policy issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli writes:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:50:00 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I personally disagree -- on the grounds that the software works as it
>> should without the blobs, and the hardware is what fails to provide
>> the necessary interface -- but m
interface -- but mine is a minority viewpoint.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with at least a colorable position,
but not the one who added the sourceless code in the first place.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s *could* be interpreted as talking about a copyright
license, but the more sensible interpretation is a driver's license.
Requiring that a licensee acknowledge the software's lack of such a
regulatory license is a way for the copyright licensor to protect
against liability if the software is used in some way that violates
the relevant regulations.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
>> > Without a piece of paper with Adam's signature saying otherwise,
>> > the copyright remains with him. So Ed should ensure he does not
>> > change the copyright notice.
>
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > * The following file "trade.c" was written by Adam Bryant who
>> > * gives all rights to this code to Ed Barlow provided that this
>> > * message remains intact.
failed. However, the DRM/TPM are still there -- it is simply legal
for SCC to digitally mark their products in a way that makes them
compatible with Lexmark's. Even if the exact case is not apposite to
CC3.0, the lesson that DRM or TPM may exist without posing a legal
problem is relevant.
Mich
under
GPLv2, BSD, MIT or a number of other licenses.
It poses practical problems, I think regardless of license, for people
who wish to reuse only portions of the file -- in terms of how they
should describe the copyright on the reused portions -- but the chance
of that seems low enough to cross th
assumption to reach this conclusion, but
you did not identify it earlier.
Also, if you are going to exclude "useful article" status from
consideration, why include fair use or fair dealing, which are
similarly neither uniform nor universal?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S. Copyright Act calls a "useful article".) Why do you say it
is non-distributable in the first place?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
purposes
rather than teaching, commentary, or similar purposes is not fair
practice (in the US, fair use) and requires license from the rights
holder(s).
[1]- http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
[2]- http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm
Michael Poole
--
Thus, if the author
is worried enough about attributions that they dislike (and note that
some upstream authors of software in Debian are notorious about this),
he is likely to get his way even if the license does not explicitly
require removing his name.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
>> face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
>> malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, p
enalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly permits one side
to be evil in this way.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licensees to any adverse effects.
In contrast, choice-of-law clauses are useful because they provide a
frame of reference and set of definitions for terms of art. It is
possible that certain choices of law would be non-free, but so far
that is more an academic concern than actual.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uch questions in general. FTP-masters have the power to
decide in particular cases by accepting or rejecting packages in NEW,
but that is based on their judgment and not an official position.
Michael Poole
(Not a Debian Developer; not a lawyer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the general
cause of free software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tement; there are plenty of cases where
goods -- such as military surplus missile launchers -- are export
controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably
smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export
controlled.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
ou must send
us a message , by snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us where and when
you are running the game. (remember to include your address, name
etc.)").
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ngement. You would definitely want a lawyer to draft such a
letter so that it will hold up. Since both works are GPLed, I would
hope this would be acceptable to the trademark owners.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as not
DFSG-free.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ts the inclusion of
portions of the Geant4 software itself in a patent application. I do
not believe this impairs the patent process -- if the patent depends
so strongly on the base software, its novelty is dubious. Similarly,
I think that including open source software in patent applications is
no
cludes an unmodified copy
of TrueCrypt could claim to be endorsed by the TrueCrypt Foundation or
by the authors of TrueCrypt?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Török Edvin writes:
> On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
> > good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
> > US, the
ary-code recipient (be able to) get the complete modified source
code.
Michael Poole
;The license shows many signs of being written by someone with just
enough knowledge to be legally dangerous."
Regardless of the actual subject of my quote, I do not think it is an
insult to remark that someone is not an expert in matters of law.
Even lawyers specialize, and a family law practiti
dtufs writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
> First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
>
>
> > it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
> > copies of the work to third parties
>
> Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
> do requir
dtufs writes:
> Michael Poole writes:
>
> > One sign is the frequent use of alternatives --
> > "features/functionalities", "product/modifications",
> > and so forth -- rather than defining a minimal set
> > of terms up front and using them late
owledges that certain parts are
governed by different licenses.
Overall, this seems like a fairly pointless and dangerous but not
clearly unfree license; GPLv2 or v2+ with SSL exception and a
trademark note on appropriate use of "TrueCrypt" and "TrueCrypt
Foundation" seem like a much clearer choice.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re is no need, but the customary practice
is for any LGPL'ed (or GPL'ed) work that links directly against
OpenSSL to have the "OpenSSL exception" granted by its copyright
holders. I am not sure what the requirement is for scenarios where
the program also links against other LGPL'
es contractor "lock-in" for the life of a
project.
I suspect the reason to include it in open source software is similar,
ensuring that copyleft licenses keep effect when the government passes
a copy of the covered software to another party. You would probably
have to talk to the license
A promise to indemnify Sun would not prevent or limit this tactic. It
would instead mean that "Debian" (whatever entity or entities agreed
to that indemnification) would end up paying Sun's legal bills and
damages until "Debian" went bankrupt. The remaining balance would
come
Gregory Colpart writes:
> Chuck, I forward to debian-legal list, best place for license
> experts.
By the way, cc'ing a closed list when emailing an open list is poor form.
(Hopefully this will help others avoid the auto-reject message I got.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
inding. A written but purportedly implied agreement is
insufficient, as are verbal or non-specific agreements. In the
absence of details, it is hard to say which applies in this case; but
unless the employer is asking in the context of an employee's paid
work, a copyright assignment is the safe bet.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer
> + Packaging license text
>
> What do other folks think?
Many packages already have notices to that effect. Partial results
from a quick grep: xutils and a lot of other XSF packages, openssh,
openoffice.org packages, and mailcrypt. It's p
o paragraphs.
The best way to resolve a lawyerbomb is to contact upstream and ask
them to clarify it one way or the other. If upstream is unreachable,
the question isn't really resolveable. If upstream declines to
clarify (or clarifies by removing mention of the GPL), that is a clear
indication that
ing distinct from "media"
means that the safe assumption is that an "Electronic Distribution
Mechanism" cannot be "the same media". See, for example, Clinchfield
Coal Co. v. FMSHRC, 895 F.2d 773, 779 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is one of several options; a distributor
may satisfy the GPL by making the work's source code available at the
same time and in the same place as the object code.
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Hill writes:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
> > package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
> > what you suggested in the bug comments: w
the (L)GPL
incompatibility with the classic advertising clause that is used for
the BSD-licensed portions.
(If you follow debian-legal, I apologize for cc'ing you directly, but
it seemed the more reliable way to get the response through.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t IMO:
>
> a) A person could reasonably argue that multiple verbatim copies of a GFDL
> document are backup copies as defined by 17 USC 117.
17 USC 117 talks about computer programs, not documentation.
> b) In the case of GFDL documents, there are no monetary damages that could
>
1 - 100 of 458 matches
Mail list logo
