I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision
could get the guidelines to be much closer to the *actual* practise of
how we evaluate licen
On 30 May 2004 06:28:12 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
> that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
> just give examples of things it *cannot*.
It sounds interesting: it may work better...
> I think that
Francesco Poli wrote:
> * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds.
> However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that specify
> that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of an aggregate
> software distribution."
> Do you regard those programs as fr
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * the title: why `stuff'?
Mostly to emphasize the draftness of the text. Not intended to be
permanent.
> Should these guidelines become the new DFSG, I think they will be named
> Debian Free Software Guidelines version 2.0
Agreed.
> * question: "Su
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 04:59:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Just a question: does this mean that you also grandfather GPL#8?
>
> Um, no. That is a good reason not to have a grandfather clause,
> actually. Removed.
You might want to add a gene
Hello legal wizards,
I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
is distributable in non-free.
The license can be found here:
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2
My problems are:
- Are
Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
> that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
> just give examples of things it *cannot*.
Well, I like the approach a lot.
> I think that such a revision
> could get the guideline
Sebastian Ley said on Sun, May 30, 2004 at 09:54:09PM +0200,:
> determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
> is distributable in non-free.
>
> The license can be found here:
> http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2
>
Here is the text:-
Just did a ctr
On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
statement
in "advertising materials".
I disagree. It's usually in any of the "supporting documentation" vs.
in all of
On May 25, 2004, at 01:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO, "Mexicans can't distribute this software" isn't free, even if its
part of the GPL.
Let's not get carried away.
Well, looks like you've failed your humor check today...
Let's just say I meant Mexicans as in "people residing in Mexico"
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> >documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
> >statement
> >in "advertising materials".
>
>
FWIW, I don't particularly like this idea. The DFSG, in practice,
is working very well, and the "case law" developing around it is
practical and, at least on debian-legal, well-understood.
Perhaps you could call this the "Henning Free Stuff Guidelines" for now?
Having the same abbreviation is inc
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> What about the old Apache license:
>
> 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
>if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> "This product includes software developed by the
>Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/
Scripsit "Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here is the text:-
...
> CONFIDENTIALITY. If you wish to have a third party consultant or
> subcontractor ("Contractor") perform work on your behalf which
> involves access to or use of Software,
That would seem to include our mirror network...
>
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You might want to add a general statement about optional clauses which
> require release-time steps from the "author", which would cause problems
> if invoked, but which haven't been invoked.
I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecess
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You might want to add a general statement about optional clauses which
require release-time steps from the "author", which would cause problems
if invoked, but which haven't been invoked.
I had hoped that the general approach wo
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I actually don't think the GPL Preamble is entirely legally irrelevant; it
> would presumably color the legal interpretation of the GPL if a question of
> interpretation came up.
Hm, what about "a non-legal piece of text", then?
> Typo, should be "
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but when I attempt to explain it such
> that it is clear for an uninitiated reader what the problem is, it
> gets very convoluted. Can't we just hope that an attempt to ITP a
> license text as a work
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, I don't particularly like this idea. The DFSG, in practice,
> is working very well, and the "case law" developing around it is
> practical and, at least on debian-legal, well-understood.
I understand and respect your opinion. However, it seems l
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Maybe an explicit statement of this point would be a useful addition,
> possibly in the introduction?
I think you're right in general, but I'm not happy with your exact
text:
> Note that the /license/ is the terms of the /license text/ as
> interprete
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai quotes:
> LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with
> Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with
> non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
How can this be free?
--
Raul
Oh, wait, you were asking a different question...
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the
> terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive,
> nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up licen
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:48:19AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary -
> the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of
> the actual license grant made by the author.
Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this descriptio
Bah, I need sleep, minor nitpick:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:42:33AM -0400, I wrote:
> (iii) only covers end-users
(iii) only covers documentation
24 matches
Mail list logo
