Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:33:14PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.06.01.1951 +0200]: > > The choice of law is my choice and not of the person who doesn't > > follow the rules of the license. I am convinced that the choice > > of law has no influenc

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On May 31, 2004, at 20:42, Matthew Palmer wrote: OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright notice must be prese

Re: Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry

Hi, If the two licenses only applied to different libraries that linked to each other, they would be compatible, because the scope of the LGPL deliberately stops at the library boundary. However, the LGPL requires that all code which directly incorporates LGPLed code be LGPLed. [...] So any "wo

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

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". > >

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:50:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > 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

Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 06:36:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with > > > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free. > > > Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place. > > O

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or > just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used? > The wording is unclear to us, sorry." But those are the same thing. Copyright attaches to the

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation > > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway. On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > We have imposed that requirement up

Re: Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry

Joachim Reichel wrote: >> If the two licenses only applied to different libraries that linked to >> each other, they would be compatible, because the scope of the LGPL >> deliberately stops at the library boundary. However, the LGPL requires >> that all code which directly incorporates LGPLed code

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > It can't be a copyright assignment, because I have not signed it... > > Title 17, Sec. 204(a) > A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation > of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, >

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems > > stronger. > > That's a problem, then. The full clause: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the follo

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:07:06 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > The essence of what I would accept is this: > > "If you claim, legally, that my work can't be > distributed/used/modified freely by people in general, then *you* > can't distribute/use/modify my work either". A "if you think this > sho

Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:33:14 +0200 martin f krafft wrote: > i release all my work under the artistic licence, or the > do-as-you-damned-well-please licence, or an attribution licence. > afaict, all these allow closed derivation. yet, they are all > dfsg-free. If you are referring to the Creative C

Собака - волк

Самое эффективное средство защиты от бродячих и агрессивных собак. http://www.DAZER2.ru/?rgWtVvw (095) 258-0083 они болезненно действуют на душу, когда слышишь

Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the > > GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some > > computer to make create a copy of the Work

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

I wrote, > My results so far are at > and then a lot of people wrote comments, most of which I have still not followed up on, due to the demands of my day job. I won't be able to do debian-legal things for the next week or so either; I'll try t

Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

Henning Makholm wrote: When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed through a coil, which causes an area of the disk surface to be made into a copy of the work. But that is actually irrelevant. The releva

Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter > where you consider the copy to be "made", *I* am the one who is > causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that > particular time and plac

Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]

> Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Except, the copy is being made on the server. On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that > sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed

Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > debian-legal, I am CC'ing y'all for hope of valuable input. Please > refer to http://bugs.debian.org/251983 for a history of this > discussion. > > It's about the QPL, specifically term 6c. and the choice of legal > venue, which Nathanael claims to be i

Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html > > which render its problems moot. As long as the origin