On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:04:22 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> > I think that the "dissident test" and others are indirectly mentionned to
> > everyone who wants to join Debian:
> >
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down
> many licenses as DFSG violation.
> * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable
> (GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export contr
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:29:11 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
> I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate
> lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate
> a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools
> available in his
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG
> > point 5.
> >
> > More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who
> > wish to not use their real name, for pri
* Osamu Aoki [120924 16:43]:
> I see your position.
>
> But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down
> many licenses as DFSG violation.
I think it would help if you actually use that test and argue about that
case. I.e. what effect does some requirement have for someon
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Osamu Aoki [120924 16:10]:
> > > > Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003
> > > > using this "dissident tests" to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced
> > > > packages.
> > >
> > > You do not need
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
...
> > Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> > proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> > some cases alre
* Osamu Aoki [120924 16:10]:
> > > Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003
> > > using this "dissident tests" to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced
> > > packages.
> >
> > You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the
> > DFSG. The tests a
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:32:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Osamu Aoki [120924 15:25]:
> > Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> > proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> > some cases already.
>
> How can it be proven to be wr
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > Chris wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dis
* Osamu Aoki [120924 15:25]:
> Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> some cases already.
How can it be proven to be wrong? If some license makes it impossible
for some people in a sadly far to oft
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
Given that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
>make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable mad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
>groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable made up situation it is obv
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So a licence that doesn't discriminate against non-US, but forbids
> > changes made with non-US keyboards from being distributed would be
> > fine by you? (There's probably a better example.)
>
> T
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > > governments, who does it cover for you?
> >
> > I think the point her
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > governments, who does it cover for you?
>
> I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
> groups, it onl
Merritt Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In April 2005, Shi Tao was imprisoned for 10 years for "providing
> state secrets to foreign entities", partly because the local
> police traced his email address back to him (source Reporters
> Sans Frontiers). In that case, it was news of a censorship ord
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >It seems grounded in the DFSGs "1. Free redistribution" and
> > >"5. No discrimination against persons or groups".
> > It may seem so if you are willing to stretch eno
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >It seems grounded in the DFSGs "1. Free redistribution" and
> >"5. No discrimination against persons or groups".
> It may seem so if you are willing to stretch enough the meaning of the
> DFSG in ways it was never supposed to be.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>>>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>>>propose an amendment to the SC.
>> Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
>> to forbid licenses whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, it is not.
>> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
>> invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
>It originated in
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00282.html as a
>rationale for not accepting forced submissio
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
> No, it is not.
> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
> invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
It originated in
htt
Marco d'Itri writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>>propose an amendment to the SC.
> Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
> to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>propose an amendment to the SC.
Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
to forbid licenses which provide th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
>The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
No, it is not.
The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
--
ciao,
Mar
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>> propose an amendment to the SC.
>
> The GPL plainly discriminates against people who li
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
> propose an amendment to the SC.
The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where
software patents
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> You seem to be making a call for interpreting the DFSG literally. I
> think this is impossible. We should stay as close to the spirit of the
> DFSG and we should rely on the text as our best clue. However, things
> will *always* com
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> >> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >>
> >> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>
>> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
>> >
>> >
>> The Dissident test is a
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >>
> >>
> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
> >
> >
> The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does ma
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.ht
34 matches
Mail list logo
