>> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
>>> the
>>> following?
>>>
>>> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
>>> "Termination for IP or Patent Action".
>>>
>>> - I change t
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
>> the
>> following?
>>
>> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
>> "Termination for IP or Patent Action".
>>
>> - I change the manual
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG
> > 9).
>
> How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
> problem, but only for users of Bacula.
It
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Kern Sibbald wrote:
[...]
> Hmmm. I don't think I have ever seen the Postfix license, but someone
> else has probably picked it up, and applying it more globally is
> almost surely something I have added.
>
> In any case, I have now deleted that clause fr
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
>> the
>> following?
>>
>> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
>> "Termination for IP or Patent Action".
>>
>> - I change the manual
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software
>> (DFSG 9).
>> I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
>
> How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
> problem, but only for users of Bac
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> > *trademark*
>> > unfairly and without permission.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
>> -- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is
>> that
>> intellectual pro
> I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its
> license.
>
> From
> http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2&view=markup
>
>
> Termination for IP or Patent Action:
> In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this
> licen
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the
> following?
>
> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
> "Termination for IP or Patent Action".
>
> - I change the manual license to
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > *trademark*
> > unfairly and without permission.
>
> If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
> -- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that
> intellectual property right
On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:54:46 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its
> license.
Thanks for pointing this terrific clause out.
>
> From
> http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2&view=markup
>
>
> Te
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:27:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > This is an additional restriction beyond those in the GPL. Therefore this
> > renders the license GPL-incompatible. Which is a major problem since other
> > parts
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9).
> I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
> Who w
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suspect that this will not be considered a reasonable clause by most
> people on debian-legal. It effectively says "As long as you use Bacula,
> you grant everyone in the world the right to use any or your copyrighted
> work in any GPLed program, and you
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-m
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license.
Thanks for mentioning this, Nathanael. I had read the license, but had
assumed (incorrectly, I guess) that Jose had already evaluated it here
before uplo
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license.
From
http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2&view=markup
Termination for IP or Patent Action:
In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this
license shall terminate
John Goerzen wrote:
>I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider ot
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>>
John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
> license list
> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
> "Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I suppose this is a possibility, but with the current license, this
>> shouldn't be possible, though I admit I hadn't thought about it. I
>> doubt,
>> however, if this is a real possibility, since who has the means to
>> publish
>> paper copies and give th
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I suppose this is a possibility, but with the current license, this
> shouldn't be possible, though I admit I hadn't thought about it. I doubt,
> however, if this is a real possibility, since who has the means to publish
> paper copies and give them away free?
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> John Goerzen wrote:
>>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>>> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>>> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>>> DFSG
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>> Hello debian-legal,
>>>
>>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>>> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>>> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>>> DFSG-free. However, Kern
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Yes, this is correct, but with the nuance, that I would be very happy
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello debian-legal,
>>
>> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
>> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
>> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
>> DFSG-free. However, Kern has indi
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>> > Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
>> > want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
>> > manual.
>> > Is it possible to get a license that would be both
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
> > want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
> > manual.
> > Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-fre
> Hello debian-legal,
>
> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
> author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
> DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to co
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
Kern's requirements?
I hope not. It's
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
> Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he
> doesn't want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions
> of the manual.
>
> Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and
> meet Kern's requirements? Would th
Hello debian-legal,
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider other
32 matches
Mail list logo
