, that it is based
on the Software licensed hereunder
I believe this fails the desert island test, since it requires "a freely
accessibly website". Do you agree?
Is there a standardized procedure within Debian we could use to switch
packages in main from CeCILL-B to CeCILL-C? CeC
2008/3/11, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why describe the dissident test as relying solely on the "field of
> endeavour" (DFSG 6) guideline? That's new and also seems like a strawman:
> I think that it's clear that protesting is a field, but I don't think
> identity-disclosure necessarily prev
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> No, a license that doesn't follow the DFSG is non-free; a license that
> fails the dissident test is merely not useful for someone who wants to
> violate local law while obeying copyright law.
>
> The claim that protesting is a "field of endeavour",
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:15:10AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese
> > dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who
> > wears an uniform) -- he breaks un
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:]
> > > No, that isn't true. A change to the license which says you don't need to
> > > include source would prevent the bloody murderer from being a problem,
> > > just like a c
bloody murderer) examples is to analyze
> *whether* a restriction is free. If in order to do this you need a principle
> which already defines what restrictions cannot be called free, then the
> desert island test is completely useless. You have to decide whether the
> restriction is fre
*whether* a restriction is free. If in order to do this you need a principle
which already defines what restrictions cannot be called free, then the
desert island test is completely useless. You have to decide whether the
restriction is free before you can even try to apply it.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > No, that isn't true. A change to the license which says you don't need to
> > include source would prevent the bloody murderer from being a problem,
> > just like a change saying you don't need to send changes off the island
> > would prevent the island from b
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> source, the license demanding you do so is fine.
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > One can spot whether it's the fault of the licence in 99% of problems
> > by asking whether a change to the licence could remove the problem.
> >
> > A change to the licence could allow desert island hacking.
> > No ch
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese
> dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who
> wears an uniform) -- he breaks unrelated laws, yet does not breach the
> license in any way.
A license
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It's pretty similar to the bloody lunatic test; the license says you
> > can't distribute unless you follow some condition (distribute source/send
> > changes off the island), but an external force having nothing to do with the
> > author of the software forces
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I could equally use that reasoning for the mandatory redistribution case.
> > No software under that license is free for you, but that's the fault of the
> > situation and not the license. The bug
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote about the bloody lunatic test:
> > In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is
> > free
> > for 'you'. However, that's the fault of the lunatic and not the software or
> > its licence. IMO th
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:54:38PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Allow me to propose my own convenient test, which
> > > I refer to as the "Bloody Murderer Test":
> > In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is
> > free
> > for
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Allow me to propose my own convenient test, which
> > I refer to as the "Bloody Murderer Test":
> In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is free
> for 'you'. However, that's the fault of the lunatic and not the software or
> it
ntly
general' is unknown to me, but it might be a similar question to the software
patent or child protection ones which debian occasionally faces. There's not
a great way to answer those questions yet AFAIK.
> If we follow the logic of the Desert Island test (or the even more fun
&
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:20:56AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> >In other words, the "desert island test" is a way of expressing [...]
> So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal subscribers
> believe it (and some of the other common
association, or anything of the sort.
People who agree with the desert island test are no more or less a part
of debian-legal than people who don't agree with it.
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
st have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test
> > > > was first mentioned in 2002 in
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html
> > >
> > > An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my t
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you see then, since no ordinary man can compel the Debian project
> to do *anything*
That's not true. The Debian project is compelled by "ordinary men" to
conform to local laws, for example. But that's not relevant to the
compulsion mentioned in DF
On fredagen den 29 februari 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> > I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see
> > why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete?
>
> In short, no. The
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, how about I just say, it's a great FAQ that is totally open and
> transparent and there are not a single ligament critique that could
> ever be leveled at it.
Why would you say that?
I certainly don't think the FAQ entry you presented is immune to
c
ular emphasis on undermining the GPL. He tells you that if you
> > distribute any code licensed under the GPL with the corresponding source
> > code, he will hunt you down and kill you in cold blood.
> >
> > If we follow the logic of the Desert Island test (or the even more
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:51:05 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> > I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see
> > why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete?
>
> In short, no
On Friday 29 February 2008 01:25:43 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for
> > > someone to *compel* De
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> I appriciate your attempt to see my perspective. Do you at least see
> why the answer "no" is, at best, incomplete?
In short, no. The answer given is a complete and correct answer to the
question
particular
> emphasis on undermining the GPL. He tells you that if you distribute any code
> licensed under the GPL with the corresponding source code, he will hunt you
> down and kill you in cold blood.
> If we follow the logic of the Desert Island test (or the even more fun
> D
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> You're taking it in the wrong order.
> The GPL doesn't forbid you to distribute the code because of the bloody
> murderer. The dissident and the desert island tests are about
> restrictions *inside* the license, related to some situations. Here, you
> just
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:06 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > So to conclude, I think it is actually true that there's no way for
> > someone to *compel* Debian to accept a given license as "free".
>
> The question being asked is
gt; must accompany the binary. Allow me to propose my own convenient test, which
> I refer to as the "Bloody Murderer Test":
>
> While walking down the street, you are accosted by a a deranged lunatic
> hell-bent on the destruction of the Free Software Foundation with parti
convenient test, which I refer to as the "Bloody Murderer Test":
> >
> > While walking down the street, you are accosted by a a deranged lunatic
> > hell-bent on the destruction of the Free Software Foundation with
> > particular emphasis on undermining
e destruction of the Free Software Foundation with particular
emphasis on undermining the GPL. He tells you that if you distribute any code
licensed under the GPL with the corresponding source code, he will hunt you
down and kill you in cold blood.
If we follow the logic of the Desert Island t
On Friday 29 February 2008 12:39:58 am Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives
> > the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is
> > final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it
On Friday 29 February 2008 05:29:19 am Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> > And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> > aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an
> > attempt to ti
Le mercredi 27 février 2008 à 18:13 -0800, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt
> to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to deb
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a shared
> aspiration of what the document "ought" to say. I have never seen an attempt
> to tie the three tests to specific points and thus it is impossible to debate
> and discuss the tes
2008/2/28, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my time... of course, there
> is no explanation of how a "licenses in which any changes must be sent to
> some specific place" violates:
>
> 1. Free redistribution.
1. Free Redistribution: The lic
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The response implies that -legal is the final arbiter... which gives
> the impression that -legal arbitrates (which it doesn't), that it is
> final (which it isn't), and best of all, that it is always right
> (debatable?).
I can only say in response that
On Thursday 28 February 2008 05:05:00 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -->8--
> > Q: I've flouted your advice and written a new license. I strongly
> > believe that it conforms to the DFSG and is a free software license.
> > People
On Thursday 28 February 2008 04:09:34 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:01:34 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> >
> > Now this is a page I remember... it is in
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -->8--
> Q: I've flouted your advice and written a new license. I strongly
> believe that it conforms to the DFSG and is a free software license.
> People on debian-legal don't seem to agree though. They give
> explanations
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:01:34 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
[...]
> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> Now this is a page I remember... it is indelibly rooted in my mind because of
> this fun exchange:
>
> -
On 28/02/2008, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> As I said, during NM, every candidate must do this, unless I am
> misunderstanding something, but they most point out what each test
> tries to address in DFSG.
AFAICT, there's no must. It depends on whether the application manager
follows t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28-02-2008 13:40, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Ahhmm?! I've been subscribed to d-l for around five years now and I
> have never seen anyone tie a test to a DFSG point even though folks
> have asked. In fact, it wasn't until someone posted the wikipedia
On Thursday 28 February 2008 11:27:15 am Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080228 20:01]:
> > On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You just have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test
> > &g
* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080228 20:01]:
> On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
> > You just have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test
> > was first mentioned in 2002 in
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-le
On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
> You just have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test
> was first mentioned in 2002 in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html
An actual cite to the DFSG, but it is from before my
anyone tie a test to a DFSG point even though folks
> have asked. In fact, it wasn't until someone posted the wikipedia
> article on the DFSG that I've seen the three tests spelled out "on
> paper".
You just have not been around long enough ;) The desert island test
was fi
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 07:21:27 pm Felipe Augusto van de Wiel
(faw) wrote:
> On 27-02-2008 23:13, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:20:56 pm Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal
> >> subscribers believe it (and some of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27-02-2008 23:13, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:20:56 pm Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal subscribers
>> believe it (and some of the other common "tests") are ridiculously
>
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:20:56 pm Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal subscribers
> believe it (and some of the other common "tests") are ridiculously
> contrived and bogus.
And not grounded in the specific language of the DFSG but rather a sh
Ben Finney wrote:
>Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >This fails the "desert island test", and so the package is non-free.
>>
>> The "desert island test" is just something which was
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This fails the "desert island test", and so the package is non-free.
>
> The "desert island test" is just something which was invented a few
> years ago by some debian-leg
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:34:00AM -0700, tom wrote:
> <> O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg <> > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in
> <> > will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section
> <263 is
> <>
> <> 95% of the
heir solar powered computer,
> > > drinking coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be
> > > silly, the rights that such a gedanken is protecting are anything
> > > but.
> >
> > Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at
> &g
Andreas Barth wrote:
> That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
> typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
y, the rights
>> that such a gedanken is protecting are anything but.
>
> Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at least in
> the United States, such a freedom is provided by the law/courts, not the
> license.
>
> If the license require sending the
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sean Kellogg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040713 10:55]:
> > With great respect to the 95% of the world population that does not live
> > within the US... the great majority of the world does operate under laws
> > derived from the common law system, which is embodied within the
* Sean Kellogg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040713 10:55]:
> With great respect to the 95% of the world population that does not live
> within the US... the great majority of the world does operate under laws
> derived from the common law system, which is embodied within the restatement
> of law (there
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > [If you could also provide a cite to the 2nd Restatement of
> > Contracts, that would also be appreciated. I'm not quite sure
> > where it falls into the context of US legislation or case laws.]
>
> the restatements are an effort by the American Legal I
; > that such a gedanken is protecting are anything but.
> Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at least in
> the
> United States, such a freedom is provided by the law/courts, not the license.
That might be the case. There might even be similar things in most o
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Even in the civil law societies
> (most of continental Europe and Japan) the law has been adopted from the
> United States post World War II, especially in the area of contract law where
> global economies have force a homogenization of the law.
In my experience this hom
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in
> will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section
<263 is
<>
<> 95% of the world population does not live in the US.
<
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECT
> Please do.
>
> [If you could also provide a cite to the 2nd Restatement of Contracts,
> that would also be appreciated. I'm not quite sure where it falls into
> the context of US legislation or case laws.]
I'll type up some case sites in the morning... in the mean time, I'll just
say that the
On Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:06 am, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg escribía:
> > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in question
> > will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section 263 is
>
> 95% of the
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg escribía:
> back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in question will
> be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section 263 is
95% of the world population does not live in the US.
--
Tarrío
(C
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Programmer A receives code while on a desert island with a mostly
> DFSG license attached to it that requires modification of the source
> be sent back upstream (DUTY) to greedy corporation B. A modifies
> the source, allowing him to eventually construct
fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which
was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render
that performance is discharged, unless the language or circumstances indicate
the contrary."
So, putting it all together with the Desert Island Test.
s in bottles might be
> > silly, the rights that such a gedanken is protecting are anything
> > but.
>
> Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at
> least in the United States, such a freedom is provided by the
> law/courts, not the license.
I'm not
gedanken is protecting are anything but.
Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at least in the
United States, such a freedom is provided by the law/courts, not the license.
If the license require sending the modifications back upstream, and sending is
impossible for reasons in
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> the above paragraphs have little relevance to anyone in debian. The
> technical term for this condition is "silly".
This particular test is basically expressing the idea that individuals
shouldn't be compelled to distribute changes to individuals beyond t
72 matches
Mail list logo
