On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:24, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> My rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where
> the technically ideal solution is blocked by software licensing, then
> you're not dealing with free software. This is my version of freedom 0.
> (You could always get
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 05:01, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Richard Braakman wrotes:
> >>Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
> >>software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would
> >>go like this:
> >
> > > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> > > 2. The
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There also seems to be a consensus that this interpretation of the GPL
> is not a valid one (eg. not a reasonable interpretation of the license
> itself). Interpreting the GPL in strange, logically unreasonable ways
> weakens the GPL, and weakening the
Branden Robinson wrote:
This is an extremely important point; Mr. Espuny, please research this
issue and get back to us as soon as you can. If Mr. Landry's fears are
founded, then Debian might be infringing the copyrights of people
*other* than Mr. Burzi, *right now*.
OK, Branden. I will tr
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:40:15AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Does PHP-Nuke contain any GPL code besides the author's? If so, he's
> combining GPL-incompatible code with GPL code, in which case Debian
> can't distribute it at all.
This is an extremely important point; Mr. Espuny, please resear
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's my point of view. We have judge Mr.F.Burzi and found him guilty.
I do not believe this is a fair representation of the opinion of
*anyone* on debian-legal.
The license on PHPNuke has been judged as incompatible with the D
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:55:24AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I disagree with #1 and #2. And, in fact, I belive that the PHPNuke
> author's interpretation of GPL 2c is so bizarre that it's not actually
> GPL-licensed software anymore.
Actually, it's possible that the author is not interpreting G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> OK. It seems like i won't need a week to get your point of view.
> Thankyou very much to all of you who had voted and sent explanations.
> They had been very valuable for me.
>
> First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
> dupload in a day o
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrotes:
> > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> > 2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
> > 3. Therefore, the condition is also DFSG-free
> That's my point of view. We have judge
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
> dupload in a day or two.
Thank you.
> Richard Braakman wrotes:
> > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> > 2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
>
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> a) "Move it to non-free"
That's my opinion.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Glenn wrote:
> "GPL", not "GLP". (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're
> consistently spelling it incorrectly.)
Ya. Sorry for the typo.
> Could you repeat what the "precendent point" is? I missed it.
Precedent point is we are not aguing about moving it to non-free. This
is already decid
"GPL", not "GLP". (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're
consistently spelling it incorrectly.)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So now, we can discuss the rest of the matter. But keep in mind the
> precedent point, please.
Could you repeat what the "prec
OK. It seems like i won't need a week to get your point of view.
Thankyou very much to all of you who had voted and sent explanations.
They had been very valuable for me.
First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
dupload in a day or two.
So now, we can discuss the r
> -Original Message-
> From: Hugo Espuny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just
>once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
I vote for "a", as I feel this is the only appropriate opt
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:27:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Also--a more concrete question--is it safe to distribute (even in non-free)
> programs which have upstream authors asserting broken interpretations of
> their license terms?
There have been a number of occasions where Debian has acc
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
I vote a), for the same reasons given by others on the t
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:27:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Also--a more concrete question--is it safe to distribute (even in non-free)
> programs which have upstream authors asserting broken interpretations of
> their license terms?
In this case, probably not. I just examined phpnuke's CRED
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> As after trying (yeah!, i mean trying, because is to hard to extract
> conclusions from such a very large thread) I don't get a clear idea of
> what you legal gurus think about this matter, i 'm asking you for vote
> accordingly with
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:04:48PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> >I don't see that a vote is either necessary or relevant here.
>
> It doesn't harm in anyway, and it will help me :-) This is only voluntary.
If it's a waste of time, or comes to a false conclusion (as impromptu,
ad hoc votes are liabl
Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't see that a vote is either necessary or relevant here.
It doesn't harm in anyway, and it will help me :-) This is only voluntary.
Unless you
have a specific argument why you believe the interpretation put forth by
debian-legal is wrong,
Just my personal opinio
Hugo,
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> For those who doesn't know in debian-legal, i am the DD for phpnuke
> package. Since Mr. Robinson had filled a grave bug against phpnuke
> license ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183672 ) i
> need to make
Hugo Espuny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
> 3) Where i have to send my vote: to debian-devel as a reply of this
> me
Scripsit Hugo Espuny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just keep in mind this is not an election, but a kind of referendum to
> help me out. Your help is gonna be very appreciated.
Branden's bug report was accurate when it stated that nobody on d-l
has expressed the opinion that the upstream author's requir
Hugo Espuny wrote:
3) Where i have to send my vote: to _debian-devel_ as a reply of this
Obviously i meant "debian-legal" ;-)
--
bye,
Hugo Espuny [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GNUPG key:
debian developer[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pub 1024D/E8074ECF 2002-06-28
For more info, visi
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 1) People who can vote: anyone reading this message (so reading
> debian-legal)
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
>
Hi,
For those who doesn't know in debian-legal, i am the DD for phpnuke
package. Since Mr. Robinson had filled a grave bug against phpnuke
license ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183672 ) i
need to make a decision about moving it or not to non-free.
As after trying (yeah
27 matches
Mail list logo
