Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
> entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UN
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
> >> both t
Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
>> both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
>
> Well, this is non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
> both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream may have died, and if you can't
distribut
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:50:22PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree here. I feel like the DFSG has special casing of
> individual clauses scattered throughout the document, such as 6 and 8, and
> that
> adding a choice of venue clause guideline would fit with those just fine. Tha
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:25:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such
> > a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that
> > explicit. That way
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There might be a case where we are seeing a common clause in licenses
> where there is significant belief on -legal that it might make a
> license non-free but it cannot be clearly, explicitly (unanimously?)
> tied back to existing c
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
>> disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
>> needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in
>> m
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
> disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
> needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in
> making that decision. All th
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer writes:
>>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>>
>>> I am against it in principle. Having them subscribe to the debian-*-changes
>>> mailing list is an active effort of their part, while we willingly push data
>
Matthew Palmer writes:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> I am against it in principle. Having them subscribe to the debian-*-changes
>> mailing list is an active effort of their part, while we willingly push data
>> to them.
>
>So you're now not OK with the QPL's
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
>> legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
>> amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
>>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:11:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sven Luther writes:
> >>>
> Each time i make a new upload, a
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>>Sven Luther writes:
>>>
Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
security agencies, at least this is
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
> > > security agencies, at least this is how i understood it. This inc
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If you think we should be trying to interpret things like "must not
> discriminate", I'm not sure we have much at all that could be
> grounds for consensus, to be honest.
You feel that any amount of effective discrimination inherit in a
license is DFSG
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
> legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
> amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
> DDs. If not, we clearly as
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
>> debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
>> debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
>
>I certainly have no desire to waste time arguin
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:33:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm really beginning to lose patience here - just about everybody here
> seems quite prepared to debate licenses forever, but doesn't want to
> actually _do_ anything about them...
Then please take up the work: make a suggested chan
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
> debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
> debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
I certainly have no desire to waste time arguing about arbitrary terminatio
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
>> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>>
>> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
>> you don't
Glenn Maynard writes:
>>
>> The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Or is
>> the point of debate on -legal simply to justify the existence of
>> -legal?
>
>If you're going to argue that the DFSG should be changed from a set of
>guidelines (which, by definition, require inter
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:01:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I apparently just forgot it in the flood; thanks for pointing it out
> again. Of course, that definition would mean that DFSG1 doesn't cover a
> license that says you must distribute a dollar along with any copy, but
> that's a minor
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
>>>proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
>>>licence, and they are other who don't.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
>>particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
>>draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm sti
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> As a practical considerat
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sven Luther writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>> >> we're already doing for crypt
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:01:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>
> > Sven Luther writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> >>> we're already doing for
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>
> >> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> >> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requir
Michael Poole writes:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>>
>>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
>>> the government a copy *ever
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
>> the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I t
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > As another example, what if there were a jurisd
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > > automatically receive the right to modify
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
> > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simpl
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>
> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
> you don't like, it must be said.
Not
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >In the end, we still come back to the fact that we're dealing with a
> >set of guidelines that needs to be thoughtfully applied to a
> >license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test,
> >where X is free, and Y i
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:03:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'd challenge "certainly". It's the most reasonable interpretation,
> considering that we want to allow people to use the software itself, too,
> but throwing "certainly" in there is a little strong.
I think the distinction is moot
[ Apologied for the delay in responding; I've had hardware issues
stopping me seeing this ]
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> What part of
>>
>> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>>
>> The license must not discriminate against any person o
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:00:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anywa
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:01:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, it is evident. The sect
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> > > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under su
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, it is evident. The section 6 covers how you distribute these code
> > > linking with the librar
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:08:05AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:54:29PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
> > > or giving away the software ..."
> > >
> > > I believe "may not restrict" is the o
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Where in it says you have to ?
>
> Where in it says that you don't? For my part, I can't see how either
> interpretation is more plausible than the other.
>
> In thi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
> > licence, and they are other who don't.
>
> Neither would I.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:05:13PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:19:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
> > > weightings. Since these are
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:54:29PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
> > or giving away the software ..."
> >
> > I believe "may not restrict" is the operative phrase; this is a restriction.
>
> I think we need to include t
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >>Sven Luther wrote:
> > >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian T
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:07:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being
> >non-free.
>
> I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move
> things forwar
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >>Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being
non-free.
I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move
things forward. ;-) In any case, it doesn't matter at this point what
the numbers
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:19:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
> > weightings. Since these are mostly determined by personal opinion, it
> > suggests that there isn't
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>Sven Luther wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Well, simpl
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:59:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
> > particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
> > draft of the QPL su
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:23:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL.
>
> I suspect Sven thinks--or hopes we'll believe--that one person disagreeing
> with consensus tw
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:04:30PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I also recall licenses that prohibited use in various types of weapons.
> For that matter, there is also the "Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source
> Software License Agreement" (HESSLA), as described by the GNU project on
> http://www.gnu.org
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of
> >> dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands
> >> who have a binary CD but not a source one.
> >
> >If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
> particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
> draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still
> working on: a well-
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such
> > thing.
> > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action
> > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
> >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
> >>the DFSG?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because
> > it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case,
> > a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional
> > permissio
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Under the GPL, the government can just
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
>>>for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imp
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything
>> other than the code they cover.
>
>I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1]
>But regardless, there isn't a re
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
>>request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
>>want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
>>otherwise. F
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
>>
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
>>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
>>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help.
>
> I don't think that th
Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
> licence, and they are other who don't.
Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would
want to take the softw
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
> world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
> them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it
> offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more g
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:06:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Under the GPL, the gove
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> > >> distributed sou
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> >> distributed source code be provided to the government.
> >
> >Except that there are no s
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, i wonder if this is as dramatic as it seems, since after all it only
> furthers the distribution of the source code, and it is only fair that the
> original author, whose work was freely given away so that the work linked with
> t
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:31:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
> >>and it
> >>would be good to re
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
> request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
> want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
> otherwise. For that matter, do you see an
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, you say you got legal advice. But you don't say what it was!
> > Not even over there. The specifics of that advice make it useless.
> > Was it just for your jurisdiction? Well, choice-of-law makes that
> > OK.
> Well, in any
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve this.
Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in
> >debian
> >mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame.
>
> Other people succeed in remaining polite
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in
a
newspaper is regarded as "effective notification" if it meets some
In international IP/copyright/c
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>>Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
> >>>upstream
> >>>with every change
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>But the QPL also fails
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:15:26AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Why shaky? When an clause results in discriminating against people,
> groups or fields of endeavor (of course within the limits of free
> software[1]) then the licence is non-free. Why should we make
> a difference between explicit
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
> >bunch of
> >would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
> >and
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or
so
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
>> distributed source code be provided to the government.
>
>Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that
>actually ha
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:38:23AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of dissidents.=20
>
>Which set?
The ones who want to be able to give binaries to people when they don't
necessarily trust them with th
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:50:44PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thom
Bernard R> Link writes:
>* Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 00:51]:
>> >Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that
>> >clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
>>
>> So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out
>> there wil
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:59:04AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> What part of
>
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons.
>
> allows for _any_ discrimination?
None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why t
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner
* Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 00:51]:
> >Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that
> >clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
>
> So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out
> there will have clauses that may clash
Don Armstrong writee:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So where does this stop?
>
>Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
>discrimination.
>
>That's why we're discussing it now (and have discussed it in the
>past.) We're trying to determine what amount disc
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I feel
> >it should apply to effective discrimination as well.
>
> So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
disc
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:59, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
> rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
> in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
> it danced around
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> All users of the software are given the same license. The license
>> itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say "no
>> people on a desert island may use this" or similar.
>
>I think you're limiting it to explicit d
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
> > for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of
> > explicit
1 - 100 of 396 matches
Mail list logo
