Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
> > lose that in ASCII)
>
> Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
> "conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC,
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
lose that in ASCII)
Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
"conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
The capitalizat
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
> lose that in ASCII)
Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
"conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
> The capitalization follows that
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sorry, but I have concluded that the solution is SHOUTY CAPITALS. It
works for others, it will work for us. I have more pressing matters
to attend to and can't spend more time on how exactly to make this
text conspicuous.
Okay. I
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but I have concluded that the solution is SHOUTY CAPITALS. It
> works for others, it will work for us. I have more pressing matters
> to attend to and can't spend more time on how exactly to make this
> text conspicuous.
Okay. I'm arguing for
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perhaps bold text will help. I'll play around with the formatting
somewhat. The license will appear only in HTML files, not ASCII as
I've pasted here, so we have some leeway about formatting.
Not true. The license will appear in
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps bold text will help. I'll play around with the formatting
> somewhat. The license will appear only in HTML files, not ASCII as
> I've pasted here, so we have some leeway about formatting.
Not true. The license will appear in modified works a
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:29:54 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
About Specification - I'm not bothered about that wording. I don't think
the arguments against using MIT/Expat hold water and I'm very unhappy
about XSF making a new licence, but at least wo
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:29:54 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> > About Specification - I'm not bothered about that wording. I don't think
> > the arguments against using MIT/Expat hold water and I'm very unhappy
> > about XSF making a new licence, but at least work under this
MJ Ray wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...] Unless separate permission is granted,
modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading
information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the
Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modifi
On Jan 9, 2008 3:32 PM, Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a
> > modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of
> > what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
>
> I think something went wrong
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-09 11:44:19 +]:
> The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a
> modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of
> what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
I think something went wrong with your sentence
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] Unless separate permission is granted,
> modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading
> information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the
> Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works
John Halton wrote:
Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement, so the board
may want to check their local legal position before finalising the
non-shouty version.
Well I notice that even the MIT License formats the disclaimer
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
essentially a modified
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit
> problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
> not a "Specification" anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a
> summary descri
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
> >> following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
> >> essentially a modified MI
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
w
John Halton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
freedom-friendly).
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
> following wording (for which the "permissions" section is
> essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
were not used?
>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
> issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
> licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
> freedom-friendly).
Thank you for
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today the "software" comprising the carefully planned interpretive
> routines, compilers, and other aspects of automative programming are
> at least as important to the modern electronic calculator as its
> "hardware" of tubes, transistors, wires,
Ben Finney writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Most computer-literate English speakers in the world use "software"
>> to mean "computer program" rather than "information"
>
> Perhaps, but that's not very relevant here. This discussion thread
> relates to a highly technically-foc
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> There seems to be no distinction between "software program" and
> >> "program" in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
> >
> > Of course, I immediately realise that "program"
Ben Finney writes:
> It would make your task of choosing a well-understood license easier
> if you instead used "softwaree" in its original,
> contrastted-with-hardware meaning, and not the narrow "programs only"
> meaning that some retrofit to it.
After seeing this claim made quite a few times o
Ben Finney writes:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There seems to be no distinction between "software program" and
>> "program" in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
>
> Of course, I immediately realise that "program" has plenty of meaning
> outside of (and predating)
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There seems to be no distinction between "software program" and
> "program" in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
Of course, I immediately realise that "program" has plenty of meaning
outside of (and predating) the computer field. Consider t
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > It would make your task of choosing a well-understood license
> > easier if you instead used "softwaree" in its original,
> > contrastted-with-hardware meaning, and not the narrow "programs
> > only" meaning that some retrofit t
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:14:50 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
> Question: when a document is printed, does it become hardware, or
> something else?
Not anymore than a program becomes hardware when it is stored on a
physical medium (hard disk, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, USB stick, floppy disk,
ROM chip,
Ben Finney wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> On the contrary, "software" is more sensibly contrasted with
>>> "hardware", and covers any information in digital form — whether
>>> that information happens to be interpreted as a program, an audio
>>> s
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > On the contrary, "software" is more sensibly contrasted with
> > "hardware", and covers any information in digital form — whether
> > that information happens to be interpreted as a program, an audio
> > stream, a text document,
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:25:35 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > This discrepancy has already been pointed out in bug #302417.
> > Could you help in solving that bug [4] ?
>
> Sure, I'll contact the main jabberd 1.x developer.
Thanks for the clarifications, and for h
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
On the contrary, "software" is more sensibly contrasted with
>
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:13:10 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
> > No different from what happens when I put software onto a T-shirt.
>
> I fail to see any problem in your example.
>
> Suppose that a GPLv2'ed work is printed on a T-sh
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> >> On the contrary, "software" is more sensibly contrasted with
> >> "hardware", and covers a
Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
>> protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
>> is not in compliance with the Debian Free So
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
>>> to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
>>> DFSG.
>> Thank you fo
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>> Feedback is welcome.
>
> Modified versions of the Specification should be plainly marked as such.
> The resulting confusion is regularly feared in standardization-like
> activities and often prompts restrictive copyright licenses, even though
> th
Ben Finney wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
>> to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
>> DFSG.
>
> Thank you for actively pursuing this worthwhile change.
>
>> Although we ne
* Peter Saint-Andre:
> Feedback is welcome.
Modified versions of the Specification should be plainly marked as such.
The resulting confusion is regularly feared in standardization-like
activities and often prompts restrictive copyright licenses, even though
there is no real reason for them.
--
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:42:54 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> I would encourage the adoption of the unmodified Expat/MIT license:
> http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
I forgot to add the usual disclaimers:
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_worksta
"Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
Th
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
> > to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
> > DFSG.
>
> Thank you for actively pursuing this
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
> to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
> DFSG.
Thank you for actively pursuing this worthwhile change.
> Although we need to complete some due diligenc
44 matches
Mail list logo
