On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:18:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> First of all, that sounds more like a matter of inconvenience, not a
> matter of non-freeness. After all, there are probably situations under
> which it would be a burden to distribute the source for a GPLed binary
> you are distribu
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>>
>>a) Distribute the comple
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> That aside, you have not mentioned the advantages that the non-drafter
> receives from a choice of forum clause. A mid-stream user of the
> software, who both receives the software and passes it on, will get the
> same benefits that the originator of the software is ge
Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> > Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
>
> Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
> venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In a free
> softwa
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-r
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>The exception I mentioned would be for web application-type software.
>>I am somewhat biased since the free software I write and maintain is
>>in that category, but I think it is justifiable for a license to
>>r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The main thing I don't understand in the recent discussion is that, if we
>don't take personal offense at a licensor's bad license, why should we
>expect the licensor to take offense if we bounce it for failing the DFSG?
>Why do we act as if their time
Branden Robinson writes:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly not clear that the new SC gives any leeway to use tests
>> that don't spring directly from the DFSG.
>
>Put that way, it doesn't give us any leeway to use "tests" at all.
>
>In any event, I
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:37:13PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> > Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
>
> Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
> venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:39:13PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
Indeed, much that it may well be good for a woman to be able to nurse her
child a
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:37:47PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> WE ARE NOT LAWYERS
[...]
> I suggest that in the vast majority of cases it is clear when a license
> is free in a practical sense. MPL has obscure clauses that bother
> some debian-legal extremists, but in practice, MPL mee
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:01:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper.
Well, *this* list is like a debate, as are discussion lists generally.
Announcement lists are more like newspapers.
--
G. Branden Robinson| What influenc
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We are obligated to serve the interests of our users and free software.
> This is *no* obligation to accept all free software into the archive.
That premise appears to be firmly rejected by a segment of Debian
developers.
We are, i
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
>
> We are obligated to our users not to remove (may
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> >to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
> >
> >Interestingly, the new
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> So why "should have one" rather than "needs one"? Many people are
> fond of emphasizing the "Guidelines" part of DFSG, and I hope that
> everyone would agree that a restriction on use is non-free. Yet there
> are always some who dis
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> >> perspective.
> >
> >I think there shou
Branden Robinson writes:
> The DFSG does not have a clause which mandates a license must not restrict
> the usage of a work by all recipients. Does it need one[1]?
As a non-DD, I would say it should have one, with perhaps one
exception as described below. That kind of restriction is probably
no
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright
> >> holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How
> >> does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
>> patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
>> enforced, and there's no good reaso
> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
>> patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
>> enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In a free
software license or commercial EULA however, the licensee i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
> Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
>> > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the ag
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
> > and that's what a choice
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>>> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
>>> co
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
> imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance o
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
>> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
>> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
>> a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
>> contains a clause that explicitly allows for that to
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
> license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
> good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
> free.
I would assume that if a licensor put suc
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
>> >How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
>> >use, modify or distribute the software.
>>
>> As I understand it, it limits all those rights
Florian Weimer wrote:
> We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
> of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
> itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do li
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
> any time anyway? What practical benefit does this o
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
>> > where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
>> > and the other does not, and both have choice of law and
> On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
> > where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
> > and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
> > venue c
Steve Langasek wrote:
> If "the mplayer upstream developers are controlled by evil alien
> cephalopods" is a procedurally valid reason to keep a package out of
> Debian, than so is the Chinese dissident test.
I strongly hope that that is not the only reason MPlayer has not been
accepted into Debia
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:17:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright
> holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How
Any and all fields of endeavour, depending on the licensor's mood. It can
even cha
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
>> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of fun
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
> > Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> > to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
> We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe e
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
I'm not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
> > provide. There's a practical dif
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
> choice of *law* clause looks like this:
> "This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California."
>
> A choice of venue clause does somethin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
>> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
>> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
>> DFSG-free. Oth
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>>> difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
>>
>>It makes a h
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
>>Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
>>cause your license to terminate.
>
> What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
> practice?
Because it only terminates if you refust to comply with it, o
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
>> >
>> >Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
>> >anot
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
> > > argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
> > > well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it w
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
> >
> >Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
> >another.
>
> Which of these are patent infringement
* Branden Robinson:
> Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
> cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
* Branden Robinson:
> Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
> to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
software without reason. I doubt that the test du jour can
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
>to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
>
>Interestingly, the new version of the Social Contract[1] seems to give us
>less latitude than the or
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any l
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
>> perspective.
>
>I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
>
>"Whosoever compares one's opp
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > >On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, ye
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software. Why do we consider one of these
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:15:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>There's far too much navel-gazing going on here...
> >
> >I don't think that observation helps.
>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
> through various "Tests". Some of them make sense, some of them are
> just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
> specific software!). The
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
> >
> >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
"Whosoever compares one's opposition in a discussion to indulging in
masturbatio
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
> other acceptable? T
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
> perspective. We should be worried about freedom because it has real,
> practical effects on what people can do with the software we ship.
> Theoretical limitations that have no rea
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
> DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to jus
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
> >> requirements results in you no longer bei
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>> difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
>
>It makes a huge difference. They can get access to much more so
On 2004-07-13 20:59:07 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please don't send me provate correspondance about public matters then,
There seemed little reason to point out your stupidity in public, but
you think otherwise. Fine. It's still not good to repost private to
public.
--
MJR/
Joey Hess wrote:
> > Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
> > argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
> > well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
> > the message you replied to!
>
> I consider myself a rea
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
> >thread,
> >you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
>
> Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked fo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
> >patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
> >there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination?
>
> Any situation whi
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
>> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
>> -- the current situation is not tenable for t
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
> -- the current situation is not tenable for the years to come. It's
> not something anybody sho
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
> license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
> good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
> free.
The patent non-polic
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for
>> users than
Josh Triplett wrote:
>We do not wish for our user's freedoms to be revokable, and we do not
>accept licenses that allow anyone to do so. However, *no matter what
>the Free Software license says*, a third-party patent holder can always
>sweep in and use their patents to prevent distribution. This
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>
>>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
>>
>>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
>>patented software, then it's non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplet wrote:
>
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>>>may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>>>software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>>>othe
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
>> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
>> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
>
>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
>patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
>there
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
> any time a
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different
set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
>> Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
>> of circumstances)?
>
>Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement (or lack the
Josh Triplet wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>> other acceptable? The user is equall
On 2004-07-12 18:52:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray:
Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't seem important when the DFSG were written? [...]
I doubt arbitrary termination clauses are a new problem, even since
then.
Sorry for the complications. There is an attem
On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
It's also a practical difficulty, as we hope to be
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
>>The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
>>purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
>>to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
>>allow the author to terminate the license un
On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
thread,
you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direc
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 18:40:36 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't think you're making a viable argument.
>
> I was trying to summarise the argument as described to me. I think
> it's rude of you to ignore that and shoot the messenger. I said in the
> DWN-submitted
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040712 20:25]:
> On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For example, we could create a separate archive for
> >documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
> >and non-free.
> Please explain how you would do t
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * MJ Ray:
>>> Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
>>> -project.
>> I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves changing
>> the Social Contract.
>
> So it's not t
On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray:
Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
-project.
I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves changing
the Social Contract.
So it's not the current situation then! Av
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There is an attempt to change the DFSG through various "Tests".
The tests themselves are not an attempt to change the DFSG, since
(quite clearly) they fail to actually do so.[1] Their purpose is to allow
the rights guaranteed by the DFSG to be confirmed
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, we could create a separate archive for
>> documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
>> and non-free.
>
> Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread
On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, we could create a separate archive for
documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main
and non-free.
Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on
-project.
--
MJR/
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
>> Software Foundation.
>
> That part seems inevitable in the current situation.
No, it's not, we can avoid that even if we can't reach an
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Michael Poole:
>
>> DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
>> terminate the license unilaterally.
>
> Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
> but I can't find one.
#1 (Free Redistribution) and #5 (No Discrimination A
MJ Ray wrote:
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
> otherw
On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
Software Foundation.
That part seems inevitable in the current situation. FSF does not
claim that FDL'd works are free software. That said, FDL is probab
* Michael Poole:
> DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
> terminate the license unilaterally.
Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
but I can't find one.
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] In fact, the DFSG do not
>> deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
>
> Are you sure? Really sure?
Yes, I checked it again. 8-)
> Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't see
Michael Poole wrote:
>The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
>purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
>to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
>allow the author to terminate the license unilaterally. On the other
>hand
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
> DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
> pos
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
