Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > >
> > > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
> > > > England.
>
> It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
> to appe
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
> > > > > England.
>
> In my opinion, choice of law provisions are certainly not
> GPL-incompatibili
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The first part seems to indicate that purposes that are illegal in
>> England are prohibited by the license. This is is a usage restraint,
>> as England might choose to make certain useages of informatio
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first part seems to indicate that purposes that are illegal in
> England are prohibited by the license. This is is a usage restraint,
> as England might choose to make certain useages of information
> illegal, whereas they remain legal in other count
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, definetly. It's clearly open for interpretation, my issue is that
> it's very vague and has to be interpreted. Eg, where do the laws of
> England stop and the laws of the jurisdiction of the licensee begin?
The laws of England control *interpretatio
On 2003-10-03 02:39:11 +0100 Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One such CRAN package, GPL'ed and all, was written by someone in the
I think that this is apparently licensed under the GPL with additional
restrictions contained in the licence covering the original download.
To me, t
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> One such CRAN package, GPL'ed and all, was written by someone in the
> financial industry which happens to be one of the preferred habitats of
> layers, and so it carries an extra rider. Could you good souls please opine
> if the following debian/copyright is ok for inc
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
>> > > > England.
>>
>> It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
>> to appear in a UK court should the copyright owner file suit against
>> the
Am 2003-10-03 11:25:00, schrieb Florian Weimer:
>Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>> The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
>
>Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
>in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
>1995 is
> Just because I'd be fine with it (until convinced otherwise by
> cogent arguments as removability being an imperfect but acceptable
> solution, much like, oh, the clause under which TeX slips through)
> doesn't mean that the majority opinion of d-l is; and if I'm in a
> significant minority, ther
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have trouble with the OpenSCO sourcecode, because I have programmed
> in 1988-1991 and uploaded some progs ans sourcecodes to a BBS in München.
>
> The Binary and Sourcecode (for DOS) was in the Public Domain and for
> educational only, not for c
Op vr 03-10-2003, om 03:31 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:54:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > (in case my English is worse than I thought: no, the fact that
> > 'evil' and 'manojish' appear in the same... uh... tag doesn't mean I
> > consider Manoj evil :-
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Why do you want to include it? I can't see any indication that you have
>
> Same reason as for other packages I maintain: Because it is very useful code.
Sorry, I wanted to know why you think you have to include this text in
the debian/copyright file. It doesn't lo
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:18:57AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > One such CRAN package, GPL'ed and all, was written by someone in the
> > financial industry which happens to be one of the preferred habitats of
> > layers, and so it carries an extra rider. Could you
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Right now I'm not sure if there is a problem at all. It don't think it
> > is necessary to inlcude upstream's terms for the _initial_ download, if
> > upstream doesn't mandate it.
>
> Interesting thought. But then they also have some not so pretty "do not
> distribut
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:03:40PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > > Why do you want to include it? I can't see any indication that you have
> >
> > Same reason as for other packages I maintain: Because it is very useful
> > code.
>
> Sorry, I wanted to know why y
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:30:28AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Just because I'd be fine with it (until convinced otherwise by
> > cogent arguments as removability being an imperfect but acceptable
> > solution, much like, oh, the clause under which TeX slips through)
> > doesn't mean that t
Um, I wasn't disagreeing, just clarifying.
I don't think this particular discussion is at the point. I do think
that the issues are mostly on the table. Not 100% though. Also a lot
of fun invective, which doesn't bother me (especially when posted by
well-known donkey fellatiors) but may inhibit
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, D. Starner wrote:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
> > of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
> When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
> that I printed it out a
[Please follow debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me. I am
subscribed. I have not ever indicated that I want to be Cc:'ed. In
fact, I have repeatedly asked *not* to be Cc:'ed.]
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:06:27AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> > Some might also miss the 'anarchism' package, which is also free
> > (and unlike the Bible and miscfiles, is modern, copyrighted, changes
> > often, expresses very definitely a political opinion, and is
> > released entirely under the
On Sat 04 Oct Fedor Zuev wrote:
> The same (see above) point is not correct for political
> speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
> mode of operation and never was. So, when you demand DFSG-compliant
> (free-censorable) political texts, you not help to recover th
[Jaldar: I'm shifting this discussion to debian-legal and maintaining
you on the Cc: list. Appologies if you are subscribed.]
[Legal: I'm leaving the bug closed for right now, since I'm not
interested in playing bts tennis.]
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> I'm reopening this bug be
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> interpreted it this way.
Sorry, forgot the footnote:
1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-2003
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> I'm reopening this bug because the official logo is non-free. [It
>> fails multiple parts of the DFSG, including #1, #3, #6, #8... the
>> list goes on.]
>
> The list is irrelevant as the applicability of the Debian Free
> _Software_ guidelines to grap
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > The list is irrelevant as the applicability of the Debian Free
> > _Software_ guidelines to graphical images is even more dubious than
> > its applicability to documentation.
The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for
any
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The same (see above) point is not correct for political
> speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
> mode of operation and never was.
Political speech has been around for about two thousand, six hundred
years, at least, in
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
>
> Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
> in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
> 1995
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
> Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
> provision may make all license either illegal or unenforceable.
You are misreading the Berne Convention, here. The license
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The whole point of choice-of-law is that it doesn't do anything more
> > than answer the otherwise uncertain question "whose law governs
> > this".
>
> Or more acurately: 'whose law is used to interpret the meaning of this
> license', which basically
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So adding a choice-of-law provision can't make something non-free
> unless it already was without it.
I thought I had made the example fairly clear:
1. this license is construed according to the laws of england
2. You cannot do things that
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [Jaldar: I'm shifting this discussion to debian-legal and maintaining
> you on the Cc: list. Appologies if you are subscribed.]
>
No I'm not so please keep the Cc: on any replies.
> [Legal: I'm leaving the bug closed for right now, since I'm not
> inter
[I'm not subscribed. Please Cc me on replies.]
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The number of Debian Developers that care so little about freedom for
> anything not a program is extremely discouraging.
>
The zeal of some Debian Developers to remove things is extremely
discouraging. T
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please keep the Cc: on any replies.
> > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> > interpreted it this way.
>
> For documentation I can still understand
On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
>> Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
>> provision may make all license either illegal or unenforceable.
>You are
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Work is progressing on making the unofficial logo DSFG-compliant.
> Then you will be able to use that one instead.
>
Yes but thats the unofficial logo. I want to be able to use the official
logo.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Deb
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:23:07PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> > interpreted it this way.
> For documentatio
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:31:08PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed. Please Cc me on replies.]
Please set your Mail-Followup-To headers appropriately.
> The zeal of some Debian Developers to remove things is extremely
> discouraging. That should be the weapon of last resort.
39 matches
Mail list logo
