Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just discovered that the people I was trying to help to migrate to the
> GPL might be hesitating because they don't want their software to be
> used to provide a service over the network without the source being
> release, claiming that their serv
* John Halton:
>> My question that started this thread was whether a simple ASP-fix
>> clause would make a work non-DFSG-free. The licensing terms *I* am
>> presenting for discussion is a Sleepycat+ASP-fix license which I
>> have already outlined on this list.
>
> I suspect any ASP fix is going to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:07:51 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
> > address this "problem" without doing more harm than good.
> > Any "solution" I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or
> > non
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> I did not think it was probable that a company providing such a service
> would have no place on the network connected to their activities, in
> other words, a website. So the current wording does not actually mandate
> that they *have* or *provide* such a location its
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their
> software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to
> prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money,
> any more than Linus Torva
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:53AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked with
> carets.
>
> When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly
> or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provid
John Halton wrote:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP "loophole" come down
to a reluctance to accept the implications of the "no
restrictions on use" aspects of free software: "How dare people
make money out of the software I've written?"
I don't know about the A
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
I'm inclined to agree (though open to persuasion otherwise).
There seem to be two main positions one could take on this:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP "loopho
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Why bother with the technical implementation at all? Just say that
you must prominently provide the information where to get the source
from you to network users of the work.
I take it means: "you must prominently provide the information to
network users of the work as
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
address this "problem" without doing more harm than good.
Any "solution" I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or non-free
in subtler ways.
The on
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yeah, and then the FSF goes on to publish (or seek to publish):
* the GNU FDL [1]
* the GNU AfferoGPL
* the GNU SFDL [2]
* the GNU Wiki License, mentioned in a GFDLv2-draft1 proposed clause[3]
As if their existing licenses are Harry Potter stories widely read and
und
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:51:03 + John Halton wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
> > > One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
> > > which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
> >
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be
> directly or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
> information as to how to obtain the complete source code for such work
> ^^at no more charge than the cost of transfer^^:
> *
John Halton wrote:
"PAY ME $25,000 AND I'LL LET YOU DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE FROM A
PASSWORD-PROTECTED AREA OF THIS SITE".
just as easily be read as meaning "our headquarters in northern
Scotland".
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked
with carets.
When you mak
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
> > One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
> > which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
>
> This is not really the case.
> As long as you change the lice
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> > So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
> > being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
> > Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
> being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
> Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of
17 matches
Mail list logo
