Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 15:24, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often > > shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were > > reasons to consider a license non-free. > > This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The "simple license" -- what I have been calling the "traditional GNU > documentation license", reads as follows: > >Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this >manual provided the copyright notice and this permissi

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Making a contract is no violation of the Berne Convention (and > "contract" doesn't mean you have always to sign anything). I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it was. > There are different ways to implement the rules of the Berne > Convent

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The question whether a copyright license necessarily is a contract has > nothing to do with the Berne Convention. I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it did. (As with my making that same comment to Andreas, I'm being _ironic_:

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > B downloading from A is not a problem. The problem is: How can C get a > valid contract from A, but he is downloading only from B? Well, A has > said "GPLv2", and within the first condition he has given implicit > permission to make a GPLv2-contract on

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > 17 USC 106 (3) lists four ways for a copy to be distributed. [...] If you think 17 USC limits the means of distribution of a copyrighted work's instance to only four, and somehow precludes for software anything other that sale or lease, then I think yo

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at > > > > > least) not

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > * GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, "for the 3.0.3 (or later) > version of the GNU implementation of AWK." > > This manual's new license is: > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this docum

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

* Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030908 10:01]: > Are you saying that parties to German contracts aren't required to have > the legal capacity to enter into contracts? Are they binding against > infants? Somehow, I rather doubt it. I don't know the law, but think there are some restrictions for

Re: legalities of distributing debian pre-installed iso images.

In general, if doesn't answer your questions sufficiently, please let us know what is missing so we can alter the content. Sven Luther wrote: > Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at > LinuxTag for example, did it also include t

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > This license is obviously (to me) DFSG-free: > * There are no use or copying (as such) restrictions at all. > * Permission to modify is unfettered except for preservation of license > terms. > * Permission to redistribute is unfe

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:08:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > If the point is obvious, my apologies, but: If sufficiently motivated > people are annoyed by the ongoing conversion of GNU documentation to GFDL, > they may at any time fork the final non-GFDL version and maintain > derivative works (up

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

[ Mailing list admins, please see the end of this message. ] On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:11:16AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > * GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, "for the 3.0.3 (or later) > > version of the GNU impl

OT: mailing list linkage [Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > [ UH OH. I just noticed that the de-spamification of the mailing > list archives has caused some URLs from Google to point to the wrong > messages. IMO this is deeply unfortunate. :( > > For example, search Google for "final interpretive guideline

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > _Obviously_ the Copyright Act in no wise addresses, let alone > restricts, the ways in which works may be distributed. Be serious. It lists the four ways in which a copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute a work. Leasing is the type of distri

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > The question whether a copyright license necessarily is a contract has > > nothing to do with the Berne Convention. > > I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it did. You said in your previous message that you

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 02:35]: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for > > sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone > > stands up right now to actu

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 10:05]: > Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > If I make an offer and you accept it, we've got a contract. > You're saying there are _no_ other required elements of contract > formation under German law? That seems very difficult to

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:11:16AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > * GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, "for the 3.0.3 (or later) > > version of the GNU implementation of AWK." > > > > This manual's new license is: >

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:49:12AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > 17 USC 106 (3) lists four ways for a copy to be distributed. > > 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works: > > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under > this title has the exclusive rights to

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > You said in your previous message that you "had in mind the > overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright > regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such > additions." I interpreted this to mean that you thoug

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Thank you for your explanation of the common law. You're quite welcome. > Well, we really have two legal systems in the world, the Roman Law > (including the countries of both Roman Empires, that including Russia > as sucessor of the east-roman empire

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:06:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:08:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > If the point is obvious, my apologies, but: If sufficiently motivated > > people are annoyed by the ongoing conversion of GNU documentation to GFDL, > > they may at an

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [USA Copyright Act:] > It lists the four ways in which a copyright holder has the exclusive > right to distribute a work. Leasing is the type of distribution > typically considered for software. Leases follow the forms of Contract > Law. > > What other

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Richard Braakman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Um, you missed "or other transfer of ownership". The recipient > gains ownership of a copy (and sometimes this is an actual sale, > where money changes hands), and gets a license to make and > distribute further copies under certain conditions. Tha

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Rick Moen said: > Under common law (and extensions such as the Uniform Commercial Code), > the required contract element of acceptance entails _communication_ of > that acceptance to the offeror. Obviously, C's acceptance per that > framework is legally problematic. > > (Informally, one speaks of

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Joe Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > If that is the case (that a "meeting of the minds" is required for a valid > contract to be formed), and a contract is required for a software license, > then where is the meeting when Dell resells Microsoft's software? Allegedly, Dell is operating as Micr

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote: > Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility > problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these > manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation, > unless the same text happens to already exist somewhere e

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:08:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:06:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility > > problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these > > manuals into their corre

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:03:17PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > I also find it hard to bend my mind in such a way that a copy of the > GPL is a section that "deals exclusively with the relationship of the > publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall > subject (or to related

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release > name stable is, release name in []): > now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 > 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1] > 2 sun[woody] sun[

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has > been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a > decision on the matter yet. It'll hopefully happen in the next few > months; it was stalled behin

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:28:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I think you'll find most of the people who want to remove non-free > would not have a serious problem with removing the GFDLed > documentation. As far as I'm concerned, if something is not free enough for main, it is not part of De

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 17:35]: > Quoting Joe Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > If that is the case (that a "meeting of the minds" is required for a valid > > contract to be formed), and a contract is required for a software license, > > then where is the meeting when Dell resells Mic

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has > > been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a > > decision on the matter yet.

Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL

... the fact that either you've stopped endorsing Debian, or you've become more vocal about it. I have never endorsed Debian, because ever since it became mature enough to be technically suitable, it had the problem of recommending and including non-free packages. Of course, the other a

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

That's not a serious and sustained conversation. Such a conversation would require that you seriously and carefully attend to all the questions that other people ask, even the ones that make you mad, even the ones that you think are attacks, even the ones that you think are unf

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 14:10 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote: Think of the DRM-version of the binary and the non-DRM-version as the source. It is certain legal to give away binaries (aka DRM-enabled versions) as long as you also provide access to the source. Sure. You can offer/provide it

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is unambiguous non-free ? That would be #1. "The LICENSE of a Debian component may

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote: > > Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility > > problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these > > manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation, > > unless

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > You said in your previous message that you "had in mind the > > overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright > > regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such > > additions." I interpreted t

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:38:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as >> there is no free implementation. > No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this > is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:46:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > You may want to send these questions to RMS. He is not subscribed to > -legal, as far as I know. I'm just musing about the issue now :) Eventually I might mail him a big list, pointing out which current Invariant Sections don't

Correct E-mail Names & Passwords

chuckbaker1 is primary account.  I'm trying to set me up as 2nd E-mail address without luck.  I'm susanbaker1.  On Dial-up Connection, it keeps coming up as "Invalid User Name or Password.  I think my password needs to be reset to GypRose.  When he or I sign into the internet, on the Dial-Up

Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have never endorsed Debian, because ever since it became mature > enough to be technically suitable, it had the problem of recommending > and including non-free packages. Of course, the other alternatives > have generally been worse. So I have not

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often > > shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were > > reasons to consider a license non-free. > > This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences are pre

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:10:10 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between: >> >> "We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing >> terms of th

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not a serious and sustained conversation. Such a > conversation would require that you seriously and carefully attend to > all the questions that other people ask, even the ones that make you > mad, even the ones that you think

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]: > I think you are mixing up "archived copy of old releases" and > "releasing". Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some > weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release, > and we have a reputation fo

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

ckOp ma 08-09-2003, om 18:40 schreef Anthony DeRobertis: > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 14:10 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > Think of the DRM-version of the binary and the non-DRM-version as the > > source. It is certain legal to give away binaries (aka DRM-enabled > > versions) as long as

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >> > >>Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that > >>prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava: > > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not > > try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and > > *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution. > > The DFSG is indeed in our us

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 18:05]: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release > > name stable is, release name in []): > > now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04 > > 1 sun[woo

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté : > It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street. > This is the standard that applies to both sides. Are there questions > you think Debian hasn't answered? Has Debian announced that it will > ignore whatever you say because y

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Your implicit assumption that methods of distribution of a > copyrighted work must be enumerated specifically in the Copyright Act > in order to be lawful is blatantly absurd, and I do not accept it. The issue is not whether they are lawfull or not, but mer

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 12:44 US/Eastern, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks only of the license. Before someone yells at me, that second sentence should read "DFSG 1 clearly...", not "DFSG clearly."

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer (good for three years) to provide it at cost. ITYM 'at a reasonable price for distributing the media' :-) No, "for a charge no more than your cost of phys

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > Um, you missed "or other transfer of ownership". I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general. > The recipient gains ownership of a copy (and sometimes this is an > actual sale, where money changes hands), and gets a license to m

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:12 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks only of the license. The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits distribution on DRM media. The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > >> > > >>Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that > > >>prohibiting D

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent > questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction? > > Which question is left? Why don't you review the mail I sent and see for yourself? -- G. Brand

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure, but we're generally not talking about sale or transfer of > ownership in the context of free software licenses, because the > license limits what you can do with your copy. That is, I often can't > take my copy, modify it, and resell the binary to

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]: > > I think you are mixing up "archived copy of old releases" and > > "releasing". Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some > > weight; and there are large num

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. > > I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to > happen *now*. Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:46:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > > Um, you missed "or other transfer of ownership". > > I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general. It looks very general to me, covering all transfers of ownershi

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Anthony DeRobertis said: > The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or > probably even punch cards, because that's not "on a medium customarily > used for software interchange." The medium restriction you note refers only to the source code. We can distribute Debian on orange

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:47:34PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:12 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> > >>How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks > >>only of the license. > > > >The subject under discussion is a license which

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:15:09PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > > The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits distribution > > on DRM media. > > Not on media. On technical methods that limit the free access to the > documentation. This restriction *does* prohibit distributio

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Sure, but we're generally not talking about sale or transfer of >> ownership in the context of free software licenses, because the >> license limits what you can do with your copy. That is, I often can't

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > That's a restriction imposed by copyright law, not by the license. > Unless you're talking about a modification-in-place, without making > any copies in the process. Yes, I'm talking about a modification-in-place. After re-reading I see I didn't make

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > That's a very rare event when talking about electronic media. Yes, > > you can draw funny pictures of RMS on the tapes you bought from the > > FSF, and then resell them. > Sure, but the software license purports to restrict this.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are > distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it > be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG > documentation', wh

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I was sold the work, sure. But most software isn't sold, it's > leased or licensed. Well, that doesn't really matter. Leased isn't an issue for free software, and neither is a contractual arrangement. > If what I did was ok, then you could trivia

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve. > > > > I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to > > happen *now*. > > Of course not.

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >>I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law >>and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases. > > *NOT* in the case of licenses that are considered

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

A week ago Mika asked two legal questions and a Debian-policy question. I'm not sure this extensive thread has managed to answer his questions yet (or recently whether it has even been addressing them.) Some looking around on the web revealed that Dan Ravicher, one of the pro-bono attorneys f

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

[NB: I am subscribed to this list. It is not necessary to Cc: me.] On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> If what I did was ok, then you could trivially circumvent most (if >> not all) copyleft licenses, simply by purchasing a copy (downloading >> it from the original offerer), modify

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > >>I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law > >>and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > There is nothing in the law that I've seen which prevents someone > from authoring and distributing a piece of software on principles > other than those governing leases; and no license that passes the > DFSG could ever be predicated on a lease, given th

Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL

Hi RMS, On Montag 08 September 2003 18:09, Richard Stallman wrote: > While nominally Debian GNU/Linux does not include the non-free > software, the non-free software is distributed from the same > server. We cannot recommend one without effectively > recommending the other. Further, the distributi

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The issue is not whether they are lawfull or not, but merely that > those are the only forms of distribution available exclusively to the > copyright holder. You are question-begging, again. Sorry, I still do not accept the premise. > > No, it does n

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Perhaps I'm just not seeing or understanding clearly, but so far no > one who claims that free software licenses are neither a lease nor a > contract (at least in the US) has explained what type of legal > agreement they would be. Just for the sake of

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > True. However, since we were discussing whether a license > necessarily is a contract, it seems strange to bring up > a copyright treaty that has nothing to do with contracts. Actually, it's that other guy who's fixated on contracts. (Ev

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Once again: I am subscribed to -legal. Please follow debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me. On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > They are *grants of permission*, which is an existing > well-established category. The closest traditional analog in the old > common law was per

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > >>I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law > >>and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases. > >

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps I'm just not seeing or understanding clearly, but so far no > one who claims that free software licenses are neither a lease nor a > contract (at least in the US) has explained what type of legal > agreement they would be. They are *grants of pe

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Moreover, the enforceability of shrinkwrap licences has been heavily > contested and is in ongoing doubt, as they have tended to be ruled to > be contracts of adhesion (i.e., lacking in meaningful privity of > contract). Certainly. But the mere application o