On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:53:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
> > > > data
> > > > s
On 2004-07-10 19:35:58 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything in the DFSG that
I
could point to which would directly cover the right to make private
modifications. [...]
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
> Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
> grounded in the DFSG, and s
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040710 21:55]:
> A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
> author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
That's a bogus reason. A typical "you must give the author 1000 $ /
month" doesn't prohibit you from
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
> grounded in the DFSG, and see
Raul Miller said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:23:11AM -0400,:
> I agree that the "unpublished" issue warrants its own test. [The
> "unpublished" test: If the license tries to restrict what a person
> does with the software when it's not being distributed, it's not a
> free license.]
Whew!!! An
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
> > author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
>
> That's a bogus reason. A typical "you must give the author 1000 $ /
> month" doesn't prohibit you from paying nothin
On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi $\forall$,
> > Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it
> > makes sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package
> > declares a dep on 1.2 or la
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:19:57 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
> > Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was able to find the english
> > version of the license. It's here :
> >
> > http://www.inria.fr/valorisation/logiciels/Licence.CeCILL-V1.US.pdf
>
> For ease of quoting and c
Ich bin bis 25.07.2004 abwesend. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Heinz Stahlhut
I am away from the office July 25, 2004. With kind regards Heinz Stahlhut
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
> > > data
> > > sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
> >
> > Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040711 14:40]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
> > > author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
> > That's a bogus reason. A typical "you must give the
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I believe the issue is that unlike patents and copyrights, unenforced
> trademarks become "diluted" and no longer enforcable.
Terminology confusion here; "dilution" is a separate concept from
enforcability. Look up "trademark infrignment" and "trademark dilution".
Indeed,
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is
> > non-free, you lose.
>
> Where in official Debian documents (e.g. constitution, policy
> manual, etc.) do you see such
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
> on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
> whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
>
> Please note that until other debian-legal participants
Josh Triplett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
>> into account a bit. I've a few comments...
>
> Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
> terms of software covered by the license, rather than the lice
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
> decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations?
--
G. Branden Robinson| The grea
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:31:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It is not. But as far as I have gathered so far, once d-l gets into a
> consensus that something is not DFSG-compliant, it gets quite difficult to
> convince someone that matters (one of the ftp-masters) that you're cor
MJ Ray wrote:
> Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
> I have
> asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
> incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
> any words from the decision-makers. Thi
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
>> suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
>> a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:07:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be
> nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people "beating
> upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology".
I never meant to imply
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
>
> > Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> > requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> > request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
>
Raul Miller wrote:
> Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Licening issues resolved! Thanks all.
>
> Cheers,
> Remco.
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:39:00 -0400
> From: "Brent Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Remco Seesink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Licening ibwebadmin
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:33:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Agreed. Personally, I think it's implicit in DFSG 6; it discriminates
> against the field of making modifications to the program, by forcing them
> to be distributed before their authors are ready.
We've had that discussion befor
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:38:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > (I personally consider the patch element of DFSG#4 bogus. Patch clauses
> > prevent forking and code reuse almost entirely, both of which are
> > critical,
> > fundamental elements of Free Software.
>
> Patch clauses, just as a
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>> the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>> software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
>> test as written
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
> everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
> following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
>
> The Dictator Test:
>
>
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> > the change author can receive any requests.
> Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Three people have already replied to this message, givi
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>> > the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>> > software, an
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
> while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
> the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
> not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
>>>10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the
>>>trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS",
>>>"QuickTime", "QuickTime Streaming Server" or any other trademarks,
>>>service mar
32 matches
Mail list logo
