"Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, if "delivering custom-modified" software includes sharing
> source code with customers, the AT&T Source Code Agreement further
> requires sharing the patches with AT&T. If you keep the patches
>
"Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2) The clause about feeding patches back to AT&T is interesting. Why does
> it
> conflict with this statement in the Debian social contract:
> "We will feed back bug-fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the
> "upstream"
> authors of
re, &/or don't have any contact info, how could you
ever submit patches?).
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: Remco Blaakmeer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:12 PM
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: AT&T source code agreement
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Gr
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 22-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Eric Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus there could exist a pseudo-secret distro, given only to one's
> > friends or sold to select customers, that the author never finds out
> > about, simply through its obscurity
On 22-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Eric Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus there could exist a pseudo-secret distro, given only to one's
> friends or sold to select customers, that the author never finds out
> about, simply through its obscurity.
But the value of the changes made to such a distri
> The license says you can just provide AT&T with a URL.
> Is that http://www.debian.org/distrib/something?
> Should we considered AT&T notified?
> End of discussion?
No. One (just one) reason for this it's that if AT&T goes away, you can
longer notify them so you can distribute the software. The
But it at least
explains why they thought of it.
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: Eric Sherrill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:28 PM
To: Elie Rosenblum; Stephen C. North; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: AT&T source cod
"Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, if "delivering custom-modified" software includes sharing source code
> with customers, the AT&T Source Code Agreement further requires sharing
> the patches with AT&T. If you keep the patches priva
Stephen:
In my informal opinion, a license closely following the DFSG obviates the
need for any "reciprocality" or "notice" clauses respecting code
modification, such as ATT License Sec. 4.2. Here's my reasoning. If
hackers distribute patched versions of a DFSG-compliant code base, then they
mus
>
> It requires that you share the source code *with whomever you give
> binaries to*. It does not require you to share the source code with
> A just because you give binaries to B. (However, if B wants to share
> the source code with A you have to accept that).
>
> --
> Henning Makholm
You are
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Stephen C. North wrote:
> But doesn't the GPL also require the sharing of source code?
It requires that you share the source code *with whomever you give
binaries to*. It does not require you to share the source code with
A just because you give binaries to B. (However, if B
Scripsit Elie Rosenblum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hey, no one even objected to the prohibition against framing the AT&T
> > website yet!
> We don't care about that.
I have not read the actual license in question recently, but we most
certainly would care a licence which boiled down to, "I give you
"delivering custom-modified" software includes sharing source code
with customers, the AT&T Source Code Agreement further requires sharing
the patches with AT&T. If you keep the patches private my reading of the
AT&T license is that you can still redistribute binaries. I just r
icence meets the DFSG is not to be argued in
court - the sole power to interpret the DFSG lies with those Debian
volunteers who decide whether or not a package is allowed into Debian
main or not. Those people will be judging from the spirit of the DFSG
even in cases where the letters may be sligh
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 03:34:25PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> > I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> > current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> > through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> > think if you got rid o
> I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> think if you got rid of the requirement to resubmit patches, there
> would be a better chance of
t clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines?
This is at least the spirit of the guidelines; I am not a license
nit-picker, and I leave the license arguments in general to those
who have more time on their hands.
> Either way, the AT&T source code agreement section 4.2 state
> A user needs to
> be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> action to enable them to perform that action legally.
>
Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
Guidelines?
Either way, the AT&T source code
I'll only address points that I think I can safely argue myself without
having to ask a lawyer...
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:35:06PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> 2) The clause about feeding patches back to AT&T is interesting. Why does
> it
> conflict with this statement in the Debian social
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:35:06PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> I appreciate the suggestions.
>
> 0) Please can you point out the AT&T source code released under a
> Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
> discussion.
> (If it refers to Doug Blewett's contributi
I appreciate the suggestions.
0) Please can you point out the AT&T source code released under a
Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
discussion.
(If it refers to Doug Blewett's contributions to the X11 widget sets? I'm
not that
confident I can stretch the precedent
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:52:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 1. The termination clause is there mainly to limit the damage to AT&T if
> > some 3rd party shows up and claims we've infringed on a patent we never
> > heard about and now we owe millions in damages. It will be interesting
> > t
Hello debian-legal
I got this from someone at AT&T.
I'm a little busy today and tomorrow, but perhaps someone other on the
list would care to write a reply explaining why we think their CYA
clauses invalidate the licence's freedom and how they could CYA just
as well without doing so.
Stephen: Th
23 matches
Mail list logo
