I think it's DFSG-free.
Bruce
Is software released under the Apple Public Source License 1.1 free
enough for our purposes? This was determined earlier, but I forget
the outcome.
netgod
* dark has changed the topic on channel #debian to: Later tonight: After
months of careful refrigeration, Debian 2.0 is
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, point taken. The GPL is a tool of social change, and as such, it
> uses patent threats as levers.
Wrong.
The GPL *is* a tool of social change and uses several levers (some
of which are not universally agreed on as Good Things).
"Patent threats"
According to John Hasler:
> Besides, even if I do pay him that $100,000 and get a license to use
> his patent, my license to use the Apple code that implements it is
> still suspended.
Quite possibly.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Wheneve
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I meant this:
>>> If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code,
>>> nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You,
>>> at Your option and subject to applicable law, from [...]
>>> independently negotiating for necessary rights from such
>>> third p
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> > similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
>
> No.
OK, point taken. The GPL is a tool of social change, and as such, it
uses patent threats as lev
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to the real culprits that have made
> > this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
>
> You have a legal opinion on this? Case law? Relevant statutes?
"Ya got me." No, I don't. But the OSI has a lawyer at o
Raul writes:
> ...it's also not something to waste a bunch of angst on.
I'm expending no angst at all on it. I doubt Apple has anything worthwhile
to offer anyway.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Raul Miller writes:
> > Personally, I have no problems with them distributing software under this
> > license (that's outside my scope): I just would hate to see us
> > misclassify this as a free license.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that others will misclassify this as
Raul Miller writes:
> Personally, I have no problems with them distributing software under this
> license (that's outside my scope): I just would hate to see us
> misclassify this as a free license.
The problem is that others will misclassify this as a free license even if
we don't.
--
John Hasle
Ben writes:
> > I won't use ``free'' software that can be arbitrarily revoked by a
> > corporation, and I hope that no one else will, either.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I won't. I would rather see Apple drop the whole thing than publish under
> this license.
Personally, I have no p
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
No. From the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not lim
Ben writes:
> I won't use ``free'' software that can be arbitrarily revoked by a
> corporation, and I hope that no one else will, either.
I won't. I would rather see Apple drop the whole thing than publish under
this license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmw
Ben writes:
> Are you willing to trust lawyers? I'm not.
I am. Most of the lawyers I have had dealings with have been honest,
ethical men who did their best to advance their client's interests. This
license was written by lawyers who have Apple for a client.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to the real culprits that have made
> this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
You have a legal opinion on this? Case law? Relevant statutes?
> Individuals and pseudo-individuals like corportations should be trusted
> in varying degree
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> This view doesn't allow for out-of-court settlements, which are often the
> best way to resolve contentious issues quickly.
"Out-of-court settlements". Yes. Interesting possibilities there. "We'll
trade you a license for our foobar algorithm that is in your foobaz pack
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> Perhaps you should consider just how much 'protection' you have with
> alternative licenses.
"Protection"? What is that supposed to mean? The only 'protection' I need
or want with a free software license is protection against claims of
infringement by the author.
--
Jo
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never even suggested that the GPL isn't viable. But even viable
> or excellent licenses may have flaws that other licences address. And
> the nature and likelihood of legal threats varies over time.
Sure, but if there's some reason that apple's dra
According to Raul Miller:
> Frankly, if the GPL isn't a viable example of a free software
> license then there are no viable examples of a free software
> license, and we might as well not pursue this discussion.
I've never even suggested that the GPL isn't viable. But even viable
or excellent li
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have a lawyer's professional opinion on that approach?
I should also note that I don't buy into the idea that law is beyond the
understanding of an intelligent person. If someone makes a statement
about the way a court is likely to decide ther
> According to Raul Miller:
> > > > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > > > [3] There
According to Raul Miller:
> > > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > > [3] There is no
> > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will eve
According to Raul Miller:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever
> > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > reasonable claims.
> > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > or that it will make a judgment.
> > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> > suspe
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > or that it will make a judgment.
>
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
> suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
> restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
>
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
> suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
> restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
> that you have some additional rights.
No, I don't think tha
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
According to John Hasler:
> This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of a
> mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple
> claiming that the Original Code infringes the copyright on the term
> paper
According to John Hasler:
> This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of a
> mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple
> claiming that the Original Code infringes the copyright on the term
> paper I wrote for Anthro 101 in 1967 and it would be grounds for
Henning Makholm writes:
> Are anyone resending these comments to the OSI mailing list mentioned?
I'm not, but feel free to forward mine.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> > The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
> > http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
> > Still not acceptable:
> > [revocation clause]
> I agree.
Are anyone resending these comments to the OSI mailing list mentioned?
--
Henning Makholm
Ben Pfaff writes:
> The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
> http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
> Still not acceptable:
> [revocation clause]
I agree. This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of
a mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple claim
The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
Still not acceptable:
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented
by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of
infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to
Just in case you hadn't subscribed.
- Forwarded message from Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivered-To: license-discuss@crynwr.com
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
35 matches
Mail list logo
