> Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
> notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT,
> according to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free
> license under the DFSG.
Hi, my apologies for the late response.
After the origina
* Adeodato Simó [Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:10:39 +0100]:
> So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in
> (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless
^
uhm, that's probably wrong, then? (After
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
>>Steve,
>>If I follow you correctly
>> A - writes program #49 and licenced under
>>GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>> B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
>>enhancement/change)
>> C
[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding
the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I
need big amounts of cluebat with this...]
* OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> > have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
> That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
>
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to
make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing
with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the "pet a cat"
licence.
Nick wrote:
> So the question I was trying to ask was "do we believe that t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
> Steve,
> If I follow you correctly
>A - writes program #49 and licenced under
> GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
> enhancement/change)
>C - determines their pa
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Lost attribution, Josh I think
Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
accusations of patent infringement re
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > > consistent w
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:49:32AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
"few"
> > requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> > lawsuits against a
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
> requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether
> those lawsuits are related to the software or no
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > consistent with the goal of upholding the freedoms of users over that
> > software.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Damn. Still being misuderstood. The intention of that paragraph was not
> to allow arbitrary restrictions, but rather to indicate that perhaps we
> do believe that *some* (as yet unspecified, but soon to be specified)
> restrictions a
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I agree that this proposition is not specific enough about the types of
> conditions that we consider acceptable. I would propose the following
> addition to the above text, which I believe specifies a set of
> acceptable conditions that many on -legal agree with:
>
> """
>
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:35:27PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> >>(or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> >>freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole. A
> >>current ex
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:57:21AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
>
> [...]
> > > In the light of the threat that software patents pose to Free
> > > Software, we believe that it is likewise acceptable for software
> > > licenses to plac
Nick proposed:
> > Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> > (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> > freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole.
Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
[...]
> >
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:42:07PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
>>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>>Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
>
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:42:07PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> > > >affect other piece
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> > >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> > Yes, because I do not bel
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> Yes, because I do not believe that it is a "restriction on other
> software".
A licence esse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
>affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
Yes, because I do not believe that it is a "restriction on other
software".
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Personally, I think all licenses that impose restrictions like those in the
>APSL are non-free.
I think that these are all desireable restrictions in many classes of
free licenses.
OTOH, what we'd like to see or not in a license does not have an obvious
on its freeness.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> I don't really think it's acceptable to move half of gnome into contrib.
> Fortunately, if the package dependencies of libhowl0 are accurate, this
> shouldn't be required; mdnsresponder isn't a dependency of libhowl0, only a
> recommends: w
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> > Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> > impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
> In this software the problem is two folds, some parts
Marco wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
> Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on
> the debian-legal mailing l
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
In this software the problem is two folds, some parts of the software
are clearly free, and some other parts are a fork o
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:06:37AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
> >notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
>notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
>to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
Where "many" in this context should be read as
30 matches
Mail list logo
