On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:15:23AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
> > to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
> > licenses. Realistically, even if everybody
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can deal with the line of reasoning that says "the 4-clause BSD
> license would be non-free, because forbidding anyone mentioning the
> software in banner ads, etc. is insane, but due to its widespread use,
> an exception was made for this license". (I
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:20:20AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In practical terms, given the age of the licenses concerned, it's hard
> to say that there's a flaw in one of them that prevents people from
> being able to exercise their freedoms to a sufficient degree.
There's a flaw in one of t
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:56:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Oh, I entirely agree. Clause 10 describes licenses that were considered
> free at the time that the DFSG were written, and so the DFSG should be
> interpreted in such a way that those licenses are free. It's difficult
> to make the
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If one day we find out an issue with one of the three mentioned licenses
> and that issue makes the license non-free, we will be in trouble: what
> could we do in such a case? Say the license is free, even if we are
> convinced it's not? Say it's non-fre
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
> to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
> licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they
> were free according to the DFSG, they might hav
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:32:09 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you
> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific
> licenses it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free
> but non-optimal), or because it res
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:34:06 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my
> understanding, it was never even intended to be an actual clause of
> the DFSG.) Listing the Artistic license is just as bad.
Agreed.
Count me as one that allows you to writ
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you
>> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses
>> it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but
>> non-optimal), or bec
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:32:09PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my
> > understanding,
> > it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
> > Artistic license
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding,
>>it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
>>Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding,
> it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
> Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will
> propose a GR to chang
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> I can only tell you what the people I've actually dealt with have said. If
> it's "not practical", and if DFSG #10 enshrines the 4-clause BSD license as
> free by fiat, then we have a much larger question looming.
I (and not only I) co
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:00:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:45:02PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > And, in practice, a lot of it still boils down to what the copyright holder
> > views the *practical* requirements of fufilling the clause to mean. If it
> > means "make
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:45:02PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> And, in practice, a lot of it still boils down to what the copyright holder
> views the *practical* requirements of fufilling the clause to mean. If it
> means "make sure the phrase appears in the debian/copyright file", that's
> not te
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:26:24 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >
> > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change doesn't
> > mention rationale, either.
>
> This is the relicensing notice and it's useful, but, as you p
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:49:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joel Aelwyn:
>
> > 4) The DFSG tradition is muddy (at best) on whether it refers to the
> > 4-clause or 3-clause variant of the license -
>
> It's pretty clear: The DFSG are older than the wide-spread adoption of
> the 3-clause B
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:26:24 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't quite know what you mean: I think he was asking for the
> rationale for dropping the advertising clause, which you won't find in
> the license texts.
Yes, I was.
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change d
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Francesco Poli:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>>> discuss with them the rationale given by the University of
>>> California when they mass-retroactively-relicensed from the
>>> 4-clause to 3-clause license,
>> Could you ple
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:38:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >
> >> But in my experience, when
> >> contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
> >> from an old BSD license, and if you discus
* Joel Aelwyn:
> 4) The DFSG tradition is muddy (at best) on whether it refers to the
> 4-clause or 3-clause variant of the license -
It's pretty clear: The DFSG are older than the wide-spread adoption of
the 3-clause BSD license. Until UC Berkeley relicensed the Berkeley
Software Distribution u
* Francesco Poli:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>
>> But in my experience, when
>> contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
>> from an old BSD license, and if you discuss with them the rationale
>> given by the University of California when they
>
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> But in my experience, when
> contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
> from an old BSD license, and if you discuss with them the rationale
> given by the University of California when they
> mass-retroactively-relice
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 08:32:32PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Radu Spineanu:
>
> > I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package
> > it. However i am not sure about the license[2]. It contains some
> > restrictions about distribution:
> >
> > '3. All advertising materials men
* Radu Spineanu:
> I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package it.
> However i am not sure about the license[2].
> It contains some restrictions about distribution:
>
> '3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> must display the following acknowl
Hello
I was looking over flowc[1], and wondering if i could package it.
However i am not sure about the license[2].
It contains some restrictions about distribution:
'3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgment: "This produc
26 matches
Mail list logo
