Frederik Dannemare wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking of filing an ITP on Snort Alert Monitor[1] (SAM), but I'm
> not 100% sure about its license. Although the license is based on the GPL,
> there are some modifications to it. Personally I think it still looks
> compatible with the DFSG, but I may h
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> *Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to be a
> violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
> doesn't grant any right to modify that preamble, disgustingly enough. It's
> not
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> *Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to be a
>> violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
>> doesn't grant any right to modify
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> There's no general permission to redistribute! Yes, that's right!
I noticed that, but was thinking that clause 2: "You may distribute and
sublicense such Modified Software only under the terms of a valid,
binding license that makes no representations or warranties on beh
On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 01:10, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I don't think that the indemnification clause is a problem at all
> > (otherwise I would have written it in my original report). In the case
> > described by the clause 5, we could refer Apple (or whoever) to the
> > clauses 3 and 4 (about discl
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 09:29:19AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> | You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
> | provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
> | the GPL preamble, [...]
>
> But the preamble (or a derivative) is included in this cas
The license in question, with the preamble removed (as I don't have
permission from the FSF to distribute a modified GPL preamble):
> lookandfeel GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> PREAMBLE
*snip*
> lookandfeel GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING,
> DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
>
> Th
Hello,
I'm the upstream and Debian maintainer for psmisc. One of the tools
in psmisc is fuser and I have had some requests to make it act more
like POSIX fuser is supposed to do.
Specifically
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/fuser.html
the STDOUT and STDERR bits are usefu
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> It also has a forced-distribution clause for modifications; I can't make
>> modifications and give them to my wife without publishing them to the whole
>> world. [...]"
>
> Interesting discovery! But which part of the DFSG i
[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
There has previously been discussion at least in April 2003 on this
list about the freeness of reiserfs.
It seems a further "clarification" has been added to the license (GPL
+ clarifications) in b
Sami Liedes wrote:
>[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
>I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
>> Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
>> fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
>> a front end that hides my cre
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:40:13PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> [Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
> I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
> There has previously been discussion at least in April 2003 on this
> list about the freeness of reiserfs.
> It seems a further "c
On 2004-04-24 12:40:13 +0100 Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting:]
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front end that hides my credits from the user or renaming mkreiser4
to mkyo
Sorry, this should have gone to -legal straight, not first to
-devel.
Please CC me on replies!
I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1
It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I wou
Hi,
I ee a problem with
6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
What if I have my family-only private piece of software that I use
together with the Software,
On Apr 23, 2004, at 14:03, Sam Hartman wrote:
[btw: I'm subscribed, no need to cc me on -legal messages]
Anthony> No, the GPL says you (the distributor) may place no
Anthony> additional restrictions above the GPL.
No, quoting clause 2 B of the GPL:
b) You must cause any work tha
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ee a problem with
>
> 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
>
> What if I have my family-only pri
Hi,
Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > then you must supply one.
> To be more concrete, this fails the desert island
Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
> I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
>
> There has previously been discussion at least in April 2003 on this
> list about the freeness of reiserfs.
>
> It seems a further "clarification" has
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 01:10, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > I don't think that the indemnification clause is a problem at all
> > > (otherwise I would have written it in my original report). In the case
> > > described by the clause 5, we could refer Apple (or
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small)
> Can I implement these features, using my own code and not having seen a
> POSIX implementation, without causing any problems for me (which I don't
> mind that much) and for Debian (which I mind a lot).
Yes. There is no such thing as copyright on features
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Stigge wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lex Spoon wrote:
> >> The export clause just means Squeak must go into non-free.
> >
> > No. Rather non-US. With non-free, we have the same export problem. And
> > if there's another problem that forces us to pu
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's not feasible, Squeak seems to be clearly non-free.
Yes.
Please let us drop the DFSG side discussion. Apple has
abandoned Squeak and will not be changing the license in the
forseable future. The people developing Squeak continue using this
lic
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Apple put in code they don't own and Debian distributed it, then
> clause 5 means that when the people sue Apple for that distribution,
> Debian has to pay for Apple's defense. Normally, Debian would only
> pay for Debian's defense.
Notice, though, t
On Apr 23, 2004, at 17:50, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I think it's reasonable to interpret them as granting the appropriate
permission for derived works if the authors say that that's what they
intended. But in that case, why not just get them to rewrite it
properly?
Not sure. http://www.gn
On Apr 24, 2004, at 12:36, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I thought about that, but then I thought: "If [..] requests" - the
desert island guy can't be requested. But then, he might: cloud
painting, morse-earth-quakes, message-in-a-bottle...
Seems to be a corner case, and I have not yet an opinion on
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > > 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > > then you must supply o
On Apr 24, 2004, at 07:40, Sami Liedes wrote:
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me,
Not defined at all, that's a nice land mine.
or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front end that hides my credits from the user
That's r
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test. If I make
> modifications, then I have to give the initial developer a copy, even
> if I am physically unable to do so. This differs from the "give
> source if you give binarie
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:40:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Honestly, I think Reiser has added so many "clarifications" to the GPL
> which plainly violate the words of the GPL that he should just write
> his own non-free license.
Yes, people try very hard to be able to call their softw
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-04-24 12:40:13 +0100 Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [quoting:]
>>> Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
>>> fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
>>> a front end that hides my cre
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Lex Spoon wrote:
> The clause does not mean it must go into non-US, but the opposite:
> US servers are already bound by this clause anyway due to federal
> law. Thus we should distribute it from US servers which already
> have to be careful about exports.
You've got it totall
Lex Spoon wrote:
Note that we already distribute software under export clauses like this.
In package "bind", the DNSSafe software license states:
You must not violate United States export control laws by
distributing the DNSsafe software or information about it,
when such distributio
Lex Spoon wrote:
> 3. We would be in good company, because Squeak is already distributed
> like crazy. [...]
I read this kind of reasoning quite often lately, but I think it's void
considering that Debian tries to be careful about licenses. SUSE and
RedHat distribute and promote proprietary softwa
Lex Spoon wrote:
> The clause does not mean it must go into non-US, but the opposite:
> US servers are already bound by this clause anyway due to federal
> law. Thus we should distribute it from US servers which already
> have to be careful about exports.
Do US servers prevent me from downloading
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
> > You must not violate United States export control laws by
> > distributing the DNSsafe software or information about it,
> > when such distribution is prohibited by law.
> 'when such distribution is prohibited by law' - If you're not a US
> citizen, and n
hi Hans,
we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections
of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0].
Even more grave is that something makes them also not suited for debian's
non-free archive.
I'm sorry but if thing do not get fixed, this
> It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the
> same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the
> upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like
> Trolltech did.
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
> argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
> argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
> there to be one libcwd, and onl
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
>>argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
>>argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
>>there to
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
> changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
> more difficult. This restriction of the QPL is DFSG-free, but the other
FWIW, I'm among thos
41 matches
Mail list logo
