Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
> > > definition of Free Software?
> >
> > Excellent! I think there should be only one defin
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
> > > without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
> > > disclaims warranty.
>
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Because debian-legal-free is a particular reading of the DFSG.
>
> How do you read something that doesn't exist? I think it's more
> accurate to say that debian-legal-free is a peculiar reading of the
> DFSG.
Who cares what you say? Why do you th
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This only works if the failure happens in a non-dangerous test,
> such as a written or oral exam. If the accidental use happens
> in a *live* scenario, the consequences can be lethal (literally
> in some cases).
Works there too. Students who cannot bothe
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
> listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
> fuck off, and fuck yourself. I will cheerfully admit to being wrong
> when I've been convinced of such, and if I
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
> should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate ways. Like it or not,
we're stuck with each other
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
> > > > without forming a contract, and yet every free
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A governmen
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
> advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
> internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
> and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the discre
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
> > should go our separate ways, right?
>
> No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
> other. You don't do that by going sep
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
> > advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
> > internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
> > and
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Who cares what you say?
>
> On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
> effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
> only conclude that you care what I say.
You misun
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh well. I guess if you were to talk to a lawyer you might get a
> different opinion. I don't think I'm going to be able to convince
> you. In some jurisdictions, yes, you don't need to form a contract to
> disclaim warranty. In others, you do. You
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
> > > advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
> >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
> I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
> always the basis of the DFSG.
The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. According to
w
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
> To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
> listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
> fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad, bad hair, obnoxious attitude.
Ba
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
> always the basis of the DFSG. I merely thought that the DFSG exists to
> codify these concepts and make them more concrete. Sort of like a
> checklist so we don't fo
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> You said earlier that you *must* have a contract to disclaim, as if a
> non-contractual disclaimer is everywhere void. Now you recognize the
> truth, it seems, that a non-contractual disclaimer is, somewhere,
> sometimes, a useful thing. Since Free Software in g
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage s
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:00:23PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Your stretch relies upon a single act being both an act of distributing the
> > *modified* program and of invoking it interactively.
>
> I see no reason this can't be true of some programs. However, I do not
> *rely* on this (see b
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
> > is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
> > reply at this point. ]
>
> The response you are quot
Stephen Ryan writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
> > listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
> > fuck off, and fuck yourself.
>
> Right. Rubbery green skin, smel
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:03:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If they don't accept, fine! They don't accept--and then they are
> restricted by the copyright law (NOT by the license) and any further
> copying is then illegal.
s/is then illegal/may be infringing/, damnit. :)
http://list
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:26:42PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
> under the same conditions as non-modified versions. It says that you
> have to be able to redistribute under the same license.
Huh?
A license is allowed to pr
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> If you notice, I have actually *listened* to you (gasp!!!) and have
> dropped that line of argumentation.
While such a change of position may be of great moment to you, other
people may have overlooked it in this very large discussi
ke, 05-03-2003 kello 18:10, Russell Nelson kirjoitti:
> The boards of SPI and OSI are of the opinion (or at least have
> been) that there should be one functional definition of open source
> and free software.
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, section 9, "Software in the
Public Interest",
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
> Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
> someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal ent
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I say this with great sadness, but there appears to be a difference
in RMS's and the Debian Project's interpretation of "freedom 3".
The freedom to improve the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. According to
> web.archive.org, they seem to have been added to the GNU website sometime
> between December 1998, and April 1999.
That's interesting; I had no idea it took the FSF
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> However, PHPNuke's interpretation is broader: it insists that the blurb be
> "in the footer of each page", not just the main page. Even if we can can't
> determine the above, can we agree that it's not a reasonable interpretation
>
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
>
> Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
> someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
> listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
> fuck off, and fuck yourself.
It might be more fruitful to provide affirmative evidence for th
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:55:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > This simple approach appeals to me, not least because it makes the GNU
> > GPL more easily applicable to things that aren't software:
> >
> > source form = preferred form for modification of the Work
> > object form = any ot
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:21:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Works there too. Students who cannot bother to listen carefully to
> lectures should *not* be designing bridges.
You are *such* an idealist. I suggest not driving or walking upon any
bridges, then. ;-/
--
G. Branden Robin
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as "object form"
> > as "any form other than the preferred form for modification"?
>
> For the detailed desc
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> *speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of
> the foundation*
>
> I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees,
> but I'm working for it. Our initial thought is to move from normal
>
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
> > There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
> > '^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
>
> Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and my example
> PHPNuke pipeline?
PHPNuke is interactive. Grep
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:31:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I think it boils down to this. When I run a KDE app, I think it's
> > reasonable to ensure that the About box maintains a reference to the
> > original author for m
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I'm not sure where we could go from there; asking them to change it to only
> > the main page is pointless if that's 1: still ambiguous and/or 2: still of
> > questio
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what "the Affero bit" is?
> -Dave Turner
> GPL Compliance Engineer
Now THERE'S a title I'd like to have :-)
-- John
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:33:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Just FYI, I share your feelings. I think 2c is the worst wart on the
> > GNU GPL.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the FSF is interested in hav
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
> > "object code" as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
>
> Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
> an example of "ob
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
> of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
> conclude that our interpretation of 2 as a whole is desirable, and likely
> to be t
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:47PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
> > > '^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
> >
> > Where is the difference between your example ls/grep
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as "object form"
> > > as "any form o
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> I am looking into the license of the Xbae widget set, see
> http://xbae.sourceforge.net
Mr. Stakenborg, are you subscribed to debian-legal?
You've received several replies, and I think everyone who has replied is
pretty much on th
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
> > Software license to forbid people from removing them. It makes perfect
> > sense to remove a
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
> > of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
> > conclude
Op wo 05-03-2003, om 18:55 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> > I am looking into the license of the Xbae widget set, see
> > http://xbae.sourceforge.net
>
> Mr. Stakenborg, are you subscribed to debian-legal?
>
Yes I am. I have just br
Op di 04-03-2003, om 22:55 schreef Don Armstrong:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Does this mean that you can do these things without paying a fee to
> > upstream, or that you can only do these things if you don't charge a
> > fee for doing so?
>
> As far as I can tell, the license
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
> > > Software license to forbid
John Goerzen said:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > If a court looks at this, and sees "object code", can we really know
>> in advance if they would use the normal definition or this "liberal"
>> one? I suspect they would use the normal one, which is another
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> of the GPL?
I have a hard time deciding what to think here. On one hand, it is
not, in the present ca
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Let us consider the output of tr a-z A-Z as _not_ source code
> nor object code. This implies that it is not exempted by section 2, and
> also not exempted by section 3. So it's not a particularly useful
> definition since you would be bound by pure
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as "object form"
> > > as "any form o
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
> the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
> that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your
> code and prepares a derivative work th
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:21:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Works there too. Students who cannot bother to listen carefully to
>> lectures should *not* be designing bridges.
>
> You are *such* an idealist. I suggest not driving or walki
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> > the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> > of the GPL?
Well I should say, this case is independant of the GPL due to t
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
> > the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
> > that you can remove that
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > > Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
> > I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
> > always the basis of the DFSG.
>
> The Fou
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> > the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> > of the GPL?
> I have a hard
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> FSF's definition of Free Software --> Constitution
> Debian Free Software Guidelines--> statutory law
> debian-legal discussions --> case law
> So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, atte
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
>
> Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
> someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
> That's the
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
> not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
> persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
> change your mind.
Your only purpose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:21:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >> Works there too. Students who cannot bother to listen carefully to
> >> lectures should *not* be designing bridges.
> >
> > You are *such* an
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Not so!
>
> On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
>
> In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
> forward to a world founded upon four essential human
> freedoms.
>
> As I recall, Debian postda
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
> > not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
> > persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before yo
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:27:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm reasonably sure that in Thomas' view, those who cannot be bothered
> to carefully observe bridges and examine the engineering diagrams
> beforehand should not be walking on them, and deserve whatever happens
> if they willy-ni
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few advantages:
* It's technology-neutral. cpio vs. tar,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:52:33PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > On one hand, it is not, in the present case, an orneous requirement.
[...]
> I think it is an orneous requirement.
Do I make you 'orny, baby? Do I?
Guys, I think t
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:08:28PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > A term describing a program whose input and
> > output are interleaved, like a conversation, allowing the
> > user's input to depend on earlier output from the same run.
>
> In each run, PHPNuke receives a single req
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:53:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > This, I simply don't think I can agree with. Perhaps a clearer example
> > would be irc.worldforge.org. It lives on a computer owned and operated
> > by Bob. But Bob basically ne
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
> begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
> Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional
> permission and is therefo
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
>
> Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> of the GPL?
I do. P
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:43:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> This also goes for programs that have never been interactive before
> (and so never had a notice). If, say, I modified CVS such that it
> entered an interactive mode when run without arguments, I believe I'd
> be required to add a 2
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Is this a joke?
Asks someone whose wit is of great renown.
> FDR's "Four Freedoms" are not the same as the FSF's.
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward
to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I personally favor strict interpretation of licenses, with some
> > cognizance of historical precedent, and a liberal interpretation of the
> > DFSG, such that it can be read broadly to exclude licenses. I think
> > this is a far be
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
>
> Oh... Let's say you run an ASP service that uses GNU Hello
> World to display the appr
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
>
> Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> of the GPL?
I believe this is not free un
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:27:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm reasonably sure that in Thomas' view, those who cannot be bothered
> > to carefully observe bridges and examine the engineering diagrams
> > beforehand should not be walking on
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:20:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > But why should they need to see licensing information for software when
> > they're not bound by the licenses?
>
> I don't think they need to see it, but that they need to *be able to*
> see it. So, I do think the current (2)(c)
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:55:18PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
> > Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> > the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
> >
> > Oh... Let's say you run a
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > *speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of
> > the foundation*
> >
> > I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees,
> > but
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:56, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
>
> Can you give a reference so I can find out what "the Affero bit" is?
I have another message in this thr
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:47:27PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your only purpose here seems to be to persuade others, with a kind of
> > intransigence and a refusal to allow yourself to be persuaded.
>
> ... and
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
>
> I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so enthusiastically; it makes fear that
I am unwittingly aid
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Hopefully you can understand my predicament. I'd really like to see
> more in the way of round-table discussions between the FSF and the
> Debian Project, especially since I feel that philosophically we have far
> more similarities than diff
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
> that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
> would be happy for it to brew some more (although I'll have to take off
> my FSF hat, of course).
By "is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
> begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
> Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional
> permission and is therefo
Sorry, I'm still catching up. I found myself short an Internet
connection at this year's Mardi Gras so I'm wading through a few hundred
emails.
I'm not prepared to respond to this at length in this message but I will
summarize some thoughts. I'm in the process of preparing a full document
discussi
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:39:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
> > that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
> > would be happy for it to
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:19:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Does anyone believe that this interpretation is sufficiently wrong-headed
> > that it should not be considered valid, in spite of statements from the
> > copyright holder or a court ruling?
> (Parse failure. Restarting.)
> Do
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:16:13PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
> > begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
> > Branden, if I'm not mi
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:08:25PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> forbid it in others. I think we're stuck with the whole wart unless we
> revise the DFSG itself to clarify the GPL grandfathering.
Is there consensus that DFSG#10 really is a grandfather clause? I've seen
this interpretation offer
Ean,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:12:57PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> The underlying reason I see an advantage to the community encouraging a
> unified definition of Free Software is government legislation. It is
> fairly obvious to me that neither patents nor Free Software are going to
> go awa
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:17:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The notice requirement is part of the license. The only way to give
> others the freedom to NOT add such a notice when making a
> non-interactive -> interactive transition with your code is through a
> license exemption (any stateme
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:46:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:17:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The notice requirement is part of the license. The only way to give
> > others the freedom to NOT add such a notice when making a
> > non-interactive -> interactive
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hang on, before someone from the FSF gets defensive -- Thomas, please
> see:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00036.html
>
> I can understand, however, why you weren't aware of these developments.
Thanks for th
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to be saying that it may or may not be valid, but that you
> consider it non-free. I consider it valid, and can't bring myself to
> view this as any less free than other 2(c) notices on commandline
> programs. So long as the GPL is named in t
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
