Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 13:55, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
>> You must obtain the recipient's agreement that any such Additional
>> Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify,
>> defend and hold Apple and every Contribut
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> That's an interesting idea, but it is not what is written there: the
> APSL talks about using the software in any way to provide a service.
> So when considering the question "Is Joe using the software in any
> way to provide a service?", is "No" an a
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 02:59:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Besides, a statement like "any restriction beyond that imposed by
> copyright law is non-free" necessitatates that we answer the question
> "which copyright law?".
Plus it is fundamentally flawed, because it condones anything
forb
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:16:16PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
[...]
> if you don't buy that, at least consider the original argument: that a
> restriction in addition to those imposed by copyright law is
> necessarily non-free.
We don't uphold this principle in practice. DFSG #4 explicitly
al
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 13:55, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> You must obtain the recipient's agreement that any such Additional
> Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify,
> defend and hold Apple and every Contributor harmless for any
> liability incurred by or cla
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 09:59, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to
> include restrictions on performance. My interpretation of that is
> that they think that the "provide a service" variety of "external
> deployment" would qualify as a perf
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Even there, I think it's hard to claim that Joe is using the
>>> "Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to
>>> provide a service."
>>
>> This confuses me. How can you not say, when Joe's using the covered
>> code to perform ty
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to
>> include restrictions on performance.
>
> This is interesting, and AFAIK the first license Debian has
> considered which makes such a claim
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, so as long as someone presses a button as part of the process, this
> > requirement doesn't kick in? Does this mean moderated lists are
> > exempt and unmoderated ones would have to provide source and configuration
> > to all users?
On Fri, 8 A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
> Restrictions on use are contrary to the FSF's four freedoms #0. I think
> use restrctions are a *very* reasonable thing to prohibit given that
> "Debian will remain 100% Free Software".
Not at all:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for a
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic. If you
>> type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic
>> (well, non-digital) element: you.
>
> Ok, so as long as someone presses
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 11:20 US/Eastern, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >(And while the lawyers seem currently struggling here in
> >Germany if usage of a program is copying to RAM and thus limited
> >by copyright law or not, I just handle immoral things as void).
>
>
>> It's a restriction on use (per definition 1.4 section b). DFSG has
>> no explicit item that use of the software must not be restricted,
>> but any use restriction completely breaks users' trust of the
>> freeness of Debian.
>
>This seems like a very difficult argument to know when to make. Do
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic. If you
> type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic
> (well, non-digital) element: you.
Ok, so as long as someone presses
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be "through
>> electronic communication" to qualify:
>
> Ok, though this is an arbitrary distinction, and I'd argue that something
> that restricts e-mail co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
>> using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
>> as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
>>
>> In the list you
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Depending on exactly what it is, probably. For example, if I were to
> use a (hypothetical) GPLv3-covered firewall, would I have to offer my
> firewall code --- rules and all, gotta have complete source --- for
> download, just because it routed
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 06:51 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero
GPL
requirement for remote services to offer users the code. Do you object
to that? If so, why?
Depending on exactly what it is, probably. For example, if I w
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 11:20 US/Eastern, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
(And while the lawyers seem currently struggling here in
Germany if usage of a program is copying to RAM and thus limited
by copyright law or not, I just handle immoral things as void).
Really? Just now? In the US, Title 1
Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was my first post on this topic. You've got me confused with
> someone else. [...]
Quite likely. Apologies. Hence the vague terms.
> Oh, and I was joking.
It is remarkable that your jokes are not dissimilar from the posts of
someone else ;-)
[.
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> What are you trying to say here?
> >>
> >> * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
> >> mail-order typesetting scenario?
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper co
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
> using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
> as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
>
> In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe
> r
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:19:13AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 03:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > Perhaps a good way of summing up the problem is this:
> >
> > They're discriminating against a field of endeavor. Now, it's Free to
> > discriminate against a business model, su
MJ Ray wrote:
> Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
> > full write access to the machines providing these services.
>
> I think that you have broken normal logical extension in two emails about
> this licence now.
T
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
>> >
>> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each
>> > other in a license, so would all require full source
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each
> > other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly
> > available.
On Thu, 7
Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
> full write access to the machines providing these services.
I think that you have broken normal logical extension in two emails about
this licence now. Why do you think that offeri
MJ Ray wrote:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.
We should petition the FSF to go all the way and require a guarantee of
full write access to the machines providing these services.
After all, I c
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
>> ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
>
> I could agree with you, except tha
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
> > ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
>
> I could agree with you, except tha
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Do you object to that? If so, why?
>
> Vehemently. It removes the ability of users to privately modify work,
> which IMO is simply not free. Almost any piece of software in a business
> is used (indirectly in many cas
I haven't read the license fully yet, so please ignore me if this issue is
addressed, or there's a phrasing that makes it unimportant.
What, exactly, do you have to distribute to "users" under this clause?
Does it not have to be the complete service itself? How does that exclude
the data and
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> It is exp
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
> ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
I could agree with you, except that networked systems can't really
be hindered too much
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 10:22, MJ Ray wrote:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
> > distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
> > person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
>
> How does this
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 03:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
...
> I think this era isn't very different from that of 15 years ago. RMS,
> and the FSF, are spooked by the success of web service providers.
> They didn't seem very upset by modems, remote terminals, and
> timesharing systems, though. I thin
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's news. Earlier versions of the APSL were declared non-free because
> "The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
> your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.":
It's not news. It may have been news when Affero
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:19, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> > make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> > obligations apply upon source code distribution.
>
> I'm puzzled
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
>> distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
>> person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
>
> How does this differ fro
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030807 12:51]:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.
Hopefully not. (When I remember the "PHPNuke licese"-thread there
was some word that it will not.)
> Do you object
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that such a licence term is particularly egregious. Look at
> the GPL requirement - if you get the binary, you can get the source. Now,
> who gets binaries? Users. So, users get the source to the programs they're
> using. Now move to
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
>> DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
>> viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
> It is expe
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
> distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
> person who manages to obtain a web page from me.
How does this differ from your current obligation to either provide
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> obligations apply upon source code distribution.
I'm puzzled by this phrasing. Don't you mean binary (or any)
distr
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:16:21AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has
> now declared to be a Free Software licence:
>
> "(b) to use Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way
> to provide a service, including but not
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:19:54AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > As for "hermits and leeches", why are casting aspersions?
>
> It was a colourful flourish. Hermit is not a derogatory term (and
> hermits will not be affected if they don't communicate). Leech was used
> to indicate a scenario where
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
>
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
>
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:23, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--"the freedom
> > to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play,
> > without even mentioning that they exist"--is now only useful to hermi
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something simil
Adam Warner wrote:
What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--"the freedom
to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play,
without even mentioning that they exist"--is now only useful to hermits
and leeches. Anyone contributing by providing an electronic ser
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 20:10, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just stumbled upon Apple's claim [1] that their latest version
> 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License [2] has been certified as free
> by the FSF. Not being an expert in these matters, I am wondering if
> this makes the license
52 matches
Mail list logo
