Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence

Daniel Lange writes: > From Paul Wise: >> I note that fair use isn't a worldwide concept and other parts of the >> world have the more varied and restricted concept of "fair dealing". >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Influence_internationally >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence

From Paul Wise: I note that fair use isn't a worldwide concept and other parts of the world have the more varied and restricted concept of "fair dealing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Influence_internationally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing So, as much as possible, we shou

Re: FAQ update: Q9, test origins, was: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008/8/27 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that >> >>> the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test? >> >>Yes, I'm saying

FAQ update: Q9, test origins, was: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

"Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/8/27 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that > >>> the AGPLv3 fails the dissident test? > >>Yes, I'm saying that it might be failing it. If you use a pro

Re: Update

Meeting Update

Hi (debian-legal@lists.debian.org) I would like to inform you that I've joined Psiloc as their head for the Mideast region. Our CEO (Mr Marek Filipiak) and COO (Mr Wojciech Nowanski) are coming over from Poland to visit Dubai on September 22/23, 2007 and would be glad to meet potential cli

Meeting Update

Hi I would like to inform you that I've joined Psiloc as their head for the Mideast region. Psiloc (www.psiloc.com ) are one of the world's most innovative mobile phone applications development firms in the enterprise and mass market space (http://shop.psiloc.com <

Re: please update the license text

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:45:52 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: > severity 332606 important [...] > retitle 331418 'please update the license text' > thanks > > Hi, > > For all current RC bugs in Pear packages that use the PHP License, I > am downgrading the severity

please update the license text

332618 important severity 331418 important retitle 332606 'please update the license text' retitle 332607 'please update the license text' retitle 332608 'please update the license text' retitle 332609 'please update the license text' retitle 332610 'p

Re: CS00003271 - Please review your case update - (Assigned)

t that this is submitted upstream, > > though it would probably be better if it came directly > > from Broadcom, as I think you suggest, rather than via Debian. > > > > Given the emails we have, I don't think we'd have problems convincing > upstream (in this case, j

Re: CS00003271 - Please review your case update - (Assigned)

ven the emails we have, I don't think we'd have problems convincing upstream (in this case, jgarzik would be merging into his net-2.6 branch) to include the license update patches. Either way works for me, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CS00003271 - Please review your case update - (Assigned)

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:14:02PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:24:27 -0700, NIC Technology Support wrote: > > > Below is a response to your case number CS3271 submitted to Broadcom > > NIC Technology Support. > > > > Case Title: GPLed driver and binary-only firmware

Re: CS00003271 - Please review your case update - (Assigned)

On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:24:27 -0700, NIC Technology Support wrote: > Below is a response to your case number CS3271 submitted to Broadcom NIC > Technology Support. > > Case Title: GPLed driver and binary-only firmware blobs. > > Response from Broadcom: Can you please check with your Legal te

Re: Creative Commons update and steps forward

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:56AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general > counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and > will have a response for us by 8 April. So, another update: I got email from LL

Re: Creative Commons update and steps forward

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:51:56 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] > I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general > counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and > will have a response for us by 8 April. This is good news. > We'd like to have a telephone

Re: Creative Commons update and steps forward

On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:40 +, MJ Ray wrote: > I'm happy to be part of the group, but I am not sure what resources > I am being asked to commit. So there will be a phone conference > at some random time? I've no idea whether I can make that or not. Me either. Let's just say participation in p

Re: Creative Commons update and steps forward

Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following people have been proposed but haven't given a definitive > yes or no: > * MJ Ray I'm happy to be part of the group, but I am not sure what resources I am being asked to commit. So there will be a phone conference at some random time?

Creative Commons update and steps forward

So, as most people here know, we've been contacted by Creative Commons to "work out" the issues over their licenses. I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and will have a response for us by 8 April. We'd

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

>> 2- Debian distributes an "operating System", so we are allowed to >>distribute it. > > Maybe it's just that English is not my mother tongue, but I just can't > help my reading the license statement as meaning: > > ``These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of > install

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 08:00:57PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > >| / Copyright Intel Corporation, 1995, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, > >02, 03, 04. | / > >| / These microcode updates are distributed for the sole purpose of > >| / installation in the BIOS or Operatin

Re: Bug#282667: microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

Jan Minar wrote: Package: microcode.ctl Version: 1.11-1 Severity: normal Hi, people! CC-ing upstream, as it applies to them rather than to Debian, and debian-legal, as it will end up there anyways. IMO, the microcode update license forbids the way of re-distribution as it is used currently by

microcode.ctl: License clarification request: the microcode update file can't be distributed the way it is

Package: microcode.ctl Version: 1.11-1 Severity: normal Hi, people! CC-ing upstream, as it applies to them rather than to Debian, and debian-legal, as it will end up there anyways. IMO, the microcode update license forbids the way of re-distribution as it is used currently by the Debian package

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

een any progress on this? Not much. I provided some supplementary information and got a first reply on 30 June. Here is the current situation. Please let me know if I have accidentally dropped something: The LEGAL update notice should be not a problem for software licensed by the Mozilla Found

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant > person. More news later, hopefully. I'm still catching up on the list, so I may have missed your followup to this (though there was none to this message)... Has there be

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-29 22:21:16 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The summariser must implement a comand-line switch (--license or --package) and generate a different type of output depending on how he/she was invoked. [...] Now, it's clear (even to me! ;-) and it sounds like a good propo

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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 that summaries should be split int

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-27 11:50:21 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If there is a choice of venue clause (and it's considered valid, which it likely would be), it's likely that it would require a US defendant to go to Santa Clara to avoid summary judgement. Yes, it seems I got it total

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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 summarized by one do

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,: > > > If there are no active patents covering the software, > > Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively > enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in > respect

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people >> to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the >> legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for some

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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're > being done, now we've se

Re: patent aspects, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:19:36PM +0100,: > I am glad that Mahesh has replied. I have noticed use of the > debian-legal MPL discussion to justify condemnation of the term "free > software" in messages to fsug-kochi-discuss. I was wondering about this, till I re-read what I wrote

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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 be two types of

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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 they always seem to include

US venue clause, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-24 01:23:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] it seems they would wait for the verdict from the defendant's location, as usual. Is that true? Yuck. Kinda want to ask a lawyer about that sort of stuff. It's

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly > >>helpful > >>in understandi

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:44:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > 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

patent aspects, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

I am glad that Mahesh has replied. I have noticed use of the debian-legal MPL discussion to justify condemnation of the term "free software" in messages to fsug-kochi-discuss. As some should already know, the Open Source Initiative group famously claim "no position" on patents. As such, did the

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described as non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced: http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg00410.html OK, I missed that. The SGI F S L B clause seems

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly helpful in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar terms are in some licen

Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

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've seen them in

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:41:51AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,: > > > If there are no active patents covering the software, > > Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively > enforced or not. If the license does

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,: > If there are no active patents covering the software, Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in respect of the software released, people

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

MJ wrote: > The reference offered as showing that SGI B is considered non-free only > showed one post to me, not a discussion. I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described as non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced: http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg004

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > 1. It does not allow derived works to be distributed under the same > > terms as > > the original software (DFSG #3). > > If there are no active patents covering the software, I think clauses > 2.1(b) and 2.1(d) are no-ops. If there wer

Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

Dear debian-legal subscribers, Certain developers and others are promoting the idea that debian-legal has declared the Mozilla Public Licence, which I don't think we have, but sadly the thread has died out. I think that the large number of responses to the "draft summary" shows that there is no

Investor Update, CSRZ Very Hot Monday

+ HOT STOCK FOR MONDAY MORNING May 17th, 2004 CSRZ.PK IS EXPECTED TO EXPLODE, GET IT IMMEDIATELY! + Our last profitable offers: > DCZ - we profiled at 60 cents and it went to $1.20

Re: mysql license update

On Feb 3, 2004, at 16:03, Steve Langasek wrote: I'm not sure if we have any GPL PHP modules in Debian, and if we do checking dependencies isn't that hard. The easiest fix would be for foo.php to be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. What would constitute a "GPL PHP module"? A PEAR-type

Re: mysql license update

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:25:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:17, Henning Makholm wrote: > >So it seems. However, beware of works that include php and mysql as > >well as third-party code with the original un-excepted GPL. > I could see the following as being a pro

Re: mysql license update

On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:17, Henning Makholm wrote: So it seems. However, beware of works that include php and mysql as well as third-party code with the original un-excepted GPL. I could see the following as being a problem: a) foo.php under PHP 3.0 License using MySQL and a GPL PHP m

Re: mysql license update

Scripsit Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html > It appears that the mysql folks now provide an exception for derivative > works linked against php. Hopefully (assuming debian-legal is ok w/ > it), this means we can start linking php4 against

mysql license update

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Interestingly enough, I just stumbled upon the following: http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html It appears that the mysql folks now provide an exception for derivative works linked against php. Hopefully (assuming debian-legal is ok

Fitness and Bodybuilding Update

Thank you for subscribing to the Body and Mind Online newsletter at http://www.BodyAndMindOnline.com. A great stop for your fitness and bodybuilding resources. Don't forget, if you know of a great fitness, bodybuilding or health site please feel free to add to the links area. See you soon! T

Re: Update to [mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also. > Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could > consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluckily, 1.2.11 is not > func

Update to [mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)]

> So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently > in sid will be updated as a consequence. > The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also. > Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could > consider to add a note in it

Update to [mod_ldap for proftpd is now post-card licensed (proftpd 1.2.7+)]

sid will be updated as a consequence. The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also. Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could consider to add a note in its README.Debian. Unluckily, 1.2.11 is not functionally the same as 1.2.10, so a patch should be

APSFILTER license update (good news)

Folks good news, After short exchange of friendly discussion, APSFILTER author decided to change program to accommodate better DFSG compatibility. As for the *postcard issue*, he asked me to pass following message: > it was never my intention to punish/sue people for their behavior > for n

Update: APSFILTER license

Update: On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:30:02AM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, I am one of the APSFILTER user who send you post card :) > > I like your post card ware idea :) I am in contact with Andreas Klemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and having private conversation. He will make

Re: Logo license update?

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or > > automatically roll it over again? > > Now that we have the constitution we can just vote

RE: Logo license update?

That was the next issue I wanted to tackle after the proposed DFSG update. On 18-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or > automatically roll it over

Re: Logo license update?

Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or > automatically roll it over again? Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we don't have to extend it every couple of month

Re: Logo license update?

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or > automatically roll it over again? Why not change it to a constantly rolling over license. The way I understand it, we have this license to prevent bad things from bein

Logo license update?

The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or automatically roll it over again? Just curious, -- Brian Servis - "Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes, because by that