On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:37:35AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>
> >>>[1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
> >>>
> >>>(
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>
>>>[1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
>>>
>>>(Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing
>>>thin
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:40:49 + (UTC) Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
> This was about the recent change of license in a36 that was widely
> covered in the news, e.g. lwn or heise.de
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/006193.html
>
> We (cdrools Debian maintainers) were in ind
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> >> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> >> precise
> >> Do you have a better word, taking brevity and clarity into account?
> >
> > Requirement.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's a much broader word. For example, a license which says I may
> only make modifications in French has a requirement, but that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
>> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
>> precise language is used. If I have to perf
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
> a license, then th
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
> a license, then th
Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
a license, then that's a fee.
Do you have a better word, taking brevity and clarity into accoun
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:09:31AM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> The second issue
> * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version
> * printing code that [...]
> in cdrecord/cdrecord.c only applies to cdrecord which is completely
> copyrighted
> by JS. Therefor
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:24:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The two issues mentioned in this thread influence different parts of
> > cdrtools:
> >
> > * defaults.c /*
> > * WARNING you are only allowed to change this filename if you also
>
> > This one is used and lin
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
> [...]
>> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
>> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
>> copyright holder. The HFS suppor
Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
> I don't know how far back we'd have to go to find a legally distributable
> copy.
Probably February or January 2002.
cu andreas
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
> copyright holder. The HFS support, for example, is copyright Robert
> Leslie, and lic
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
[...]
> On the other hand, I find this message interesting:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
>
> In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> ago
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
> >
> > (Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing
> > things they were clearly gr
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
> > > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> > > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> > > ago.
> >
> > More specifically, he claims to be in discussion
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2
>
> (Accusing Free Software programmers of "perverting" the license by doing
> things they were clearly granted permission to do; that's wonderful.)
Wasn't the force behind the
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:35:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
> > copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
> > Debian deferred to
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
>> > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
>> > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
>> > ago.
>>
>> More specifically, he claims
* M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040902 17:11]:
> > In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> > claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> > ago.
>
> More specifically, he claims to be in discussion with Debian how to
> stop SuSE from
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 01:11:42PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Taken altogether, it looks like this package is not distributable by
> anybody with parts under the JS-GPL.
I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
I don't know how far back we'd have to go to f
The copyright file for cdrtools is excellently done -- I wish all
maintainers kept the separate threads of ownership so clear. It does
make it pretty clear that cdrecord is not distributable.
Followup-For: Bug #265546
Joerg Schilling's license is essentially the GNU GPL plus some extra
restrict
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
>> copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
>> Debian deferred to the copyright holder's
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
> copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
> Debian deferred to the copyright holder's interpretation in that case.
That doesn't rea
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
>> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
>> didn't have a license to distribute mod
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which
>> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL.
>>
>> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
> didn't have a license to distribute modified versions. So it got
> pulled from main.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which
> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL.
>
> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling prior versions out of main.
I see this as a similar cir
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
otherwise. We basic
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:40:40AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> In this case, what matters is that nobody be able to say "Debian took
> this guy's software and did something he didn't want done with it."
Given the nonsense that's been posted in his name, there's some serious
doubt that we
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
>> you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
>> in the meantime it should just be m
Brian Sniffen writes:
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
>> new statements
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
Is there any chance that someone has hacked his account?
Alternatively, is there any chance that he's writing in german and
relying on a program to translate what he says?
Or, maybe, that
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
> you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
> in the meantime it should just be moved to non-free.
Distributing a forked copy
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>>> fork f
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
>> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
>> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous stateme
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> > otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> > fork from a previous free version
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
> new statements also apply to older (GPL) v
Hi Steve!
You wrote:
> Joerg's changes are clearly non-free; I've not seen anybody arguing
> otherwise. We basically need to route around him at this point, and
> fork from a previous free version. His ridiculous statement that his
> new statements also apply to older (GPL) versions of cdrtools s
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:19:26AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
>> Please note that this is just the way I interpret the GPL and as this
>> is my software, users should follow my interpretation of the GPL and not
>> use their own different interpretations.
>
>This came up
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
> [...]
>>> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord
On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
[...]
>> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
>> See cdrecord.c for furt
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:19:26AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> -=-=-=-= cdrecord/LICENSE =-=-=-=-
>
> This software is under GPL but you should read the following
> clarifications:
>
>
> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
>
> See cdrecord.c for furth
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
> I wonder if this is considered acceptable for main (I would say that
> this is non-free). I don't know whether cdrecord links with (or is
> otherwise a derivative work of) o
Hi all,
in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
I wonder if this is considered acceptable for main (I would say that
this is non-free). I don't know whether cdrecord links with (or is
otherwise a derivative work of) other GPL'd software (whose copyright is
held by other
46 matches
Mail list logo
