Hi.
I normally don't read this list (so don't shout at me if I'm dumb ;)
but as an affected maintainer I have read the interpretation
of this licence and have a question.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> --- Debian-legal summary ---
>
> The OPL (Open Publication
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Hi.
.. stuff ...
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It
states
"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that
I wrote:
> 1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked.
>
> 2) The first sentence (which is a paragraph by itself) clearly states
>the conclusion, and includes the full name, including version number,
>of the license.
>
> 3) The reasons for the conclusion follow in list form.
>
> 4) Each r
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like caselaw, it's entirely appropriate to base our decisions on cases
> that we've examined before, and the metrics we've used to make those
> decisions. Of course, we probably should make an attempt to provide a
> cite to the places where the metrics w
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
number is not necessary.
I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose, but,
looking at the edited summary below this, I
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
>>restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
>>number is not necessary.
>
> I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > - The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
> > violates the dissident test.
>
> Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
> "You must cause the modified files to ca
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > - The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
> > violates the dissident test.
>
> Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
> "You must cause the modified files to ca
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> This is a serious question: how does "(DFSG 3)" tacked on to the end
> of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to refer to the basis for a specific claim. In
this case, the cla
Hello,
may you check if the following license is DFSG free, please?
http://www.paintlib.de/paintlib/copyright.html
Thanks,
Torsten
Torsten Werner wrote:
> may you check if the following license is DFSG free, please?
> http://www.paintlib.de/paintlib/copyright.html
Here is a copy of that license:
> Before the legalese starts, here's the translation to plain english:
>
> 1. Do whatever you want with paintlib. Just don't come
Torsten Werner wrote:
>may you check if the following license is DFSG free, please?
>http://www.paintlib.de/paintlib/copyright.html
It's helpful if you include the license in the mail rather than just
linking to it. In any case, it looks like it's probably DFSG free but
not GPL compatible. Points
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> This is a serious question: how does "(DFSG 3)" tacked on to the end
>> of a sentence help to explain the issue?
>
> In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
>
> It's always appropriate to refer to
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
> restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
> license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
> it describe
[snip]
If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
disagreement.
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of "DFSG as
strict ruleset" are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if we
cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
One
15 matches
Mail list logo
