On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:53:28AM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >I think we should amend DFSG 1 so that it reads as Roland's (A) (or the
> >semantic equivalent).
>
> So do I, but then we'll have to kick the Bitstream Vera fonts out of
> main. I'm guessing that won't be
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:47:28PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> i
On Nov 3, 2003, at 17:30, Roland Stigge wrote:
Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling
of
the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no
cost,
#8 requires the receiver to "have t
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
> seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have been following
> debian-legal.
I think it's a bit too strong to say that it's completely unambiguous.
I think it's more than no on
Scripsit Roland Stigge
> Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling of
> the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
> extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no cost,
> #8 requires the receiver to "have the same rights as those
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 22:24, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
> > > aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
>
> > The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
> > second sentence of
Scripsit Roland Stigge
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
> > aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
> The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
> sec
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I.e. since there's the right to sell the aggregation, there "should"
> > (DFSG wording in #8) be right to sell the program alone.
>
> No, nothing of that kind is implied. If everybody has the right to
> sell aggregations, then DFSG#8 is met.
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031103 16:25]:
> (A)
> ===
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> any party from selling or giving away the software
> - as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> - containing p
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> ..., but the result of the small LaTeX2HTML discussion last month seems
> to show a big misunderstanding because everybody involved claimed rather
> (A)
No - they complained that the license discuss
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I also don't think that your proposal (A) is an "interpretation" or
> "clarification". It is a *change*
Right, maybe ...
> - the current language "as a
> component of an aggregate software distribution" is hard (but
> apparently possible
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:47:28PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> > only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> > ineffective in pract
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would really like to have a consensus about this issue until the sarge
> release for being sure about this when checking licenses.
The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> > any party from selling or giving away the software
> > as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> > containing programs from several different sources.
> > + (But
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> ineffective in practice.
By the way, I think this phrasing in the DFSG is no accident. It's
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's a different way possible:
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> any party from selling or giving away the software
> as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> containing programs from several different sour
Hi,
during the discussion about the legal status of LaTeX2HTML [1], some
people confirmed my interpretation of the DFSG.1. But after some weeks
of intense discussion with the upstream maintainer, he is still not yet
convinced about our argumentation (although possibly ready to change the
LaTeX2HTM
17 matches
Mail list logo
