On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, this page:
>
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
>
> ...lists some license summaries and makes some statements about whether
> the licenses are free or not.
>
> It's not clear to
So, this page:
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
...lists some license summaries and makes some statements about whether
the licenses are free or not.
It's not clear to me how these summaries become "official", or at least
posted on that page. Any suggestions? I
On 01 Mar 2005 03:34:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Basically, if you want to advise copyright holders what licence
> to use, the present DLS documents are not much help.
IMHO, they can be useful as a reference that explains which issues have
been found out in the license.
Of course the summary style can
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than
> > the DLSes give too. They say "this licence is foo" rather than
> > giving recommendations for what you think is the most common
> > want.
> I'm s
1 and GPL) but mentioned
> in the unofficial FAQ rather than the /legal/licenses/ page.
Well, I think good summaries *should* (besides other things) give useful
recommendations to authors that are considering to release software
under the reviewed license: either stating that it's a g
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
> > in main and check the copyright file.
> Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and
> again? [...]
Maybe, but good/
On 2004-08-09 18:26:19 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[MJR] summary
guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses
3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not
connect
to the DFSG at all.
Either:
a. I was trying to con debian-legal i
y, I commit the same sin of poor referencing that I percieve as a
> problem with the summaries. I think the "unpleasantness" was mostly
> about the handling of the MPL threads that month and the month before.
>
> My suggestion wasn't clearly liked, but I feel there wa
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 04:36:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 03:10:06 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not so sure that it should go to d-d-a. For one time deals, where
> >a legal analysis affects a lot of packages, sure. But not for a
> >weekly synopsis. That
ebian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00334.html and part of
another subthread around
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00219.html
Sadly, I commit the same sin of poor referencing that I percieve as a
problem with the summaries. I think the "unpleasantness" was mostly
abo
On 2004-08-09 03:10:06 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not so sure that it should go to d-d-a. For one time deals, where
a legal analysis affects a lot of packages, sure. But not for a
weekly synopsis. That is more like a mailing list of its own (like
kernel-traffic).
The
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-08-08 10:49:43 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] A weekly "bits from -legal" type post would be a
> > useful thing: a short summary of licenses/clauses discussed and the
> > salient points brought up. That might encourage contri
On 2004-08-08 10:49:43 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] A weekly "bits from -legal" type post would be a
useful thing: a short summary of licenses/clauses discussed and the
salient points brought up. That might encourage contributions from the
rest of the project, such that
Mark Brown writes:
>On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:18:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> We haven't even reliably summarised discussions when they die down
>> IMO. Are you suggesting something significantly more lightweight? Can
>
>It may be easier to get time-based summa
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:18:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> We haven't even reliably summarised discussions when they die down
> IMO. Are you suggesting something significantly more lightweight? Can
It may be easier to get time-based summaries out - as you say, e-mail
discussions t
On 2004-08-07 12:14:59 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions
would help too.
We haven't even reliably summarised discussions when they die down
IMO. Are you suggesting something significantly more lightweight? Can
you
licenses?
Do you think it would be misunderstood?
The summaries sent to this list are already misreported, perhaps
maliciously sometimes but surely from misunderstanding sometimes. I
think a red/green list of licences would be abused in a similar way,
no matter what we do to it. It seems better
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:23:40 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Interesting reply,
TNX
> but it seems to have missed my main point.
Ouch, I apologize for this... ;p
>
> On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > So, IIUC, you propose
Interesting reply, but it seems to have missed my main point.
On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split into two
`variants'
This part is correct.
in your opinion, every license should be summar
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:01:36 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
>
> Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they&
On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful.
Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they're
being done, now we've seen them in action for a while.
There seem to
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:44:42 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
> whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in
> action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good
> because th
the discussion earlier this year about
> whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in
> action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good
> because they always seem to include "this is a free licence" or "this
> is
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages,
not licenses.
I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about
whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we&#
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, great job.
Thanks!
>> 7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
>
> And possibly, annontations? Clearly separated from the full text of
> the license?
Like what? This isn't really supposed to be a full analysis, just a
su
First of all, great job.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
yay. skip
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
And possibly, annontations?
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked. After a suitable delay
without serious objections, a version without the "DRAFT" ma
27 matches
Mail list logo
