On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 03:29:03PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > It highly inconveniences our users, however. No part of the Social
> > Contract says "protesting stupid laws is more important than our users."
>
> How does it inconvencience our users?
a) None looks for maili
It's DFSG-compliant as far as I can tell. I went through several passes with
them.
Bruce
From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The OSI does worry about export restrictions as license conditions; that
> was a problem with the original Apple Public Source License. There is
> still some controversy about that license, but the OSI got Apple to remove
> the export-restriction langu
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:13:25PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> It's DFSG-compliant as far as I can tell. I went through several passes with
> them.
it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
Also, it effectively requires a fee for use, unless you consider the
time of the pe
> it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
1. The IBM and Apple licenses also ask for you to have a URL where your
modifications can be found. I suspect things under those licenses are
already accepted into main. This is specificaly negociated _for_debian_
from IBM
On Nov 22, Raul Miller wrote:
> it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
>
> Also, it effectively requires a fee for use, unless you consider the
> time of the person who uses it to have no value. [same issue.]
It seems to be designed to protect users from being sued by a
I agree that CYA seems to be an important theme of the license.
ATT is the juiciest of lawsuit targets because their pockets are so deep. Any
attorney there who did not exert effort on CYA would be remiss in his duties.
I think they should have the right to CTAs if they do it in a way that keeps
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:56:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
> 1. The IBM and Apple licenses also ask for you to have a URL where your
>modifications can be found.
It's a lot easier to put some stuff up on a website once yo
Bruce Perens writes:
> From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The OSI does worry about export restrictions as license conditions; that
> > was a problem with the original Apple Public Source License. There is
> > still some controversy about that license, but the OSI got Apple to remove
AJ:
> And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
> it requires notifying AT&T
This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses. What was considered non-free
were the ones that required you to send them email on _every_ modification,
that was judged to be too great a hardship
From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Some software distributors make you say "I am aware of the export laws"
> and some make you say "I promise to abide by the export laws". There is a
> _huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a
> service by preventing you from
Bruce Perens wrote:
> > And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
> > it requires notifying AT&T
>
> This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses. What was considered non-free
> were the ones that required you to send them email on _every_ modification,
> that was judge
Bruce Perens writes:
> From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Some software distributors make you say "I am aware of the export laws"
> > and some make you say "I promise to abide by the export laws". There is a
> > _huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a
>
Joey Hess writes:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
> > > it requires notifying AT&T
> >
> > This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses. What was considered non-free
> > were the ones that required you to send them email on _every_
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:32:31PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> AJ:
> > And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
> > it requires notifying AT&T
> This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses.
Then I don't see why you'd consider the APSL free. I'll note that it's not
li
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 05:06:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's a lot easier to put some stuff up on a website once you've made some
> changes than it is to `regularly monitor the webiste for any notices'. The
> former requires you to give the code to a friend to stick up somewhere,
> the lat
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:56:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
>
> 1. The IBM and Apple licenses also ask for you to have a URL where your
>modifications can be found. I suspect things under those licenses are
>already acc
On Nov 22, Raul Miller wrote:
> > it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
> >
> > Also, it effectively requires a fee for use, unless you consider the
> > time of the person who uses it to have no value. [same issue.]
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 09:50:36PM -0600, Chris Lawre
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 05:06:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's a lot easier to put some stuff up on a website once you've made some
> > changes than it is to `regularly monitor the webiste for any notices'. The
> > former requires you to give the code to a friend to stick up somewhere,
> >
From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But now the author of the package, or a contributor, can sue Baz for
> > _copyright infringement_ for exporting the package illegally, because
> > this violates the license terms and so infringes copyright!
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 12:10:18AM -0800, B
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 09:51:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [And, as an aside, I can see the advantage of building a
> free-software-developer oriented debian subset which consists of only
> software which can be combined with GPLed software -- without any
> restrictions beyond those allowed in
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 09:51:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [And, as an aside, I can see the advantage of building a
> > free-software-developer oriented debian subset which consists of only
> > software which can be combined with GPLed software -- without any
> > restrictions beyond those a
Joey Hess writes:
> Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Who said that was OSI certified? It seems unlikely and counterintuitive
> > to me, and it's not listed in OSI's current Approved Licenses list.
>
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/whatsnew.html:
> "Open Source license"
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 01:07:33PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> Does anyone know of a plain-English summary of what may and may not
> be exported from the US? The question of whether hooks count as a
> cryptographic product -- and if so what type of hook -- arises again
> and again.
No.
This has b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> 2. Only applies if you violate U.S. laws in their scope. If you export the
>software from Europe, it's not a violation.
Unless the U.S. legislature passes a law which declares itself as
applying world-wide. It may not be *enforceable* where I am, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> I agree that CYA seems to be an important theme of the license.
What does CYA mean?
--
Henning Makholm "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Regarding the "monitor the web site" thing, I can't think of another good
> way for them to notify you if there's a claim,
They don't have to.
They could simply say: To the best of our present knowledge we have
the only copyright to this software. We c
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > rationale :
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > ^^ ^
>
> I don't understand your point.
Could the point be "Free software" as in FSF's free software
definition versus "Free software
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hm, I didn't realize that. So what if I release a program under one of these
> licenses, and am promptly hit and killed by a bus on the way home? You can't
> contact me and you haven't before, so arn't you now prohibited from
> modifying the software? That does
Henning Makholm writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
>
> > Regarding the "monitor the web site" thing, I can't think of another good
> > way for them to notify you if there's a claim,
>
> They don't have to.
>
> They could simply say: To the best of our present knowledge we have
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
