On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:24:23 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> As to the loophole: 3b says "When modifications to the Software *are
> released under this license*, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is
> granted to the initial developer" (emphasis mine). So if the changes
> are released under a differ
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:24:23PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:05:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:38:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > But I'm not allowed to, because the QPL forces me to grant additional
> > > permissions to the ini
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:05:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:38:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> > > the QPL of the patch ?
> >
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:38:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> > the QPL of the patch ?
>
> I think that the initial developer does not have to comply with the QPL
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> the QPL of the patch ?
I think that the initial developer does not have to comply with the QPL
of the patch, because he/she already has the rights he/she needs (the
right
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
> -- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
> years of data but a really, really big dongle?
A dongle is a piece of hardware designe
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That is worrying, but I expect it's there to prevent dongleware. I
> don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
> -- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
> years of data bu
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 09:24, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
>> forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
>
> "receive AND USE" ?
>
> That's a little worrying. A
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 11:07:34AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 09:03:31 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my
> > > code than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
> >
> > Easy, you place your patch under the QPL,
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 09:03:31 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> > It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my
> > code than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
>
> Easy, you place your patch under the QPL, and then if upstream applies
> the patch, he clearly makes a modification of
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 09:51:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasona
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 10:43:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, no, you cannot remove the existing copyright statement. Still the
> > clause
> > 3 deals with patches, and you can add your own copyright statement. I
> > unders
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:30:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >>Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:4
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:01:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would
On Jul 27, 2004, at 09:24, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
"receive AND USE" ?
That's a little worrying. Am I responsible to make sure they know how
to use their C c
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Moreover, we need these licenses
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
>>> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
>
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:01:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Lan
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
> > Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
>
> The problem you are g
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So t
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:48:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Moreover, we need these licenses to be recognized as open-source by
> Debian and other authorities before even considering to use them.
The problem you are going to end up with for this, though, is that there is
no authoritative En
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 09:56:12AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later
> >>>time to the change to anoth
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later
>>>time to the change to another licence altogether, maybe one of the
>>>upcoming CECILL family.
>>
>>I
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > > Sv
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So this solves most of the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > >
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > >
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> like to keep it.
I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
license. It still feels non-free to m
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:05:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Bah, i still don't believe that these two clause are really non-free. They
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:06:00AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Assufield
>
> Is this intended to be a witty play on Andrew's name? I'd have hoped
> that grade school name-calling, at least, was above DD's ...
Its his irc nickname
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Assufield
Is this intended to be a witty play on Andrew's name? I'd have hoped
that grade school name-calling, at least, was above DD's ...
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:05:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> > > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
> >
> >
> > http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/o
Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
>
>
> http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markup&rev=502
>
> Changes are :
>
> a) Modified cl
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of
>> copyright notices.
>
> That still isn't free. It must be permitted to remove any given
> notice, as long as a correct one is added elsewhere.
C
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:24:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I'm still confused by section 6 of the modified QPL:
>
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> Software. These items,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:20:31AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
> >
> >
> > http://svn.debian.org/view
I'm still confused by section 6 of the modified QPL:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
requirements:
a. You must
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
>
>
> http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markup&rev=502
That's great news!
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok this is my third and last tentative to summarize this whole mess, and i
> would ask any participant here to ask himself if he is ready to defend its
> opinion before a judge before posting, and to ask himself if he honest
43 matches
Mail list logo
