Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
>> clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
>
> So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses:
>
> http://crea
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> First, let me try to define what I'm calling "non-software":
Stop. Call it "non-programs". Here, when we say "software", we mean "it
ain't hardware".
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a com
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
>
> - Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The
Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long
> enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think
> of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in
> some important way.
>
> For example, how is this different th
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [...]
>> > 1. The version number will be modified as follows:
>> > a. The first 3 components of the version number
>> > (i.e ..) will remain unchanged.
>> > b. A new component will be app
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal
> as an argument. My theory at the time was that the old PC emulators'
> dependence on non-free system OS ROMs (like the atari800 package) had
> been fossilized into a policy that _all_ emulators depend
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it
>> with the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge
>> for that, then that's good enough.
>
> I continue to
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
>> TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't
>> packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no
>> ROM w
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 15:09 -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
>
>> > Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
>> > 'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
>> The same reason fceu was in contrib until 'efp' was packaged
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:28:38AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Would this license get in the way if I wanted to
> > take parts of xinetd and use them in other projects?
> Yes, it would require changing the version numbers of the other projects in
> deeply stupid ways.
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
>> one format of images, and there were no images out there in that
>> format, would you want to see that in Debian? What if there were
>> ima
[I am not subscribed to debian-tetex-maint.]
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we
> > could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing cod
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If you mean freely as in DFSG-free software with DFSG-content, then
> should we get rid of mpg321? What about mmix? (I think that's the name
> of the emulator for Knuth's made-up machine.)
You can compile for mmix using gcc. No kidding.
>> The Depends field should be
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Emulators work perfectly correctly without software to emulate. NO$GMB
> does the same thing with no image loaded that my gameboy does with no
> cartridge in the slot.
It has 'no significant functionality'.
> Pacifist (I assume) does the same thing with no
> BIOS that a r
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
>> Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
>> that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
>>
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
>> This was all discussed to death when Quake 2 was GPL'd [1]. The main
>> problem I see is that if you accept these arguments, contrib becomes
>> empty.
>
> Except for all the programs that depend on proprietary libraries
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
>> As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
>>
>> "Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
>> not DFSG-free."
>>
>> found on debian-legal
>> http://lists.debia
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
>> format of images, and there were no images out there in that format,
>> would you
>> want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format,
>> but in o
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
> restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
> exist today?
>
> Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this fro
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
> > > on that,
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 alread
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think Steve's guess at likely interpretations isincorrect but have
> very low confidence in my opinion.
We're all entitled to our opinions. :)
> It seems like the best course of action at this point is to try and seek
> clarificat
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:12:25PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:59:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit
> > code reuse in other projects?
[...]
> Patch clauses are at least one case in which pr
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
>> > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
>> > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Pr
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
s/^A /A free /
Very succinctly put, though.
- Matt
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
> packaging in main of appropriate content.
The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view.
2.2.1 The main section
Every package i
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>
> I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking
> aloud here- what if the consideration is "you promise to
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:22:36AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Do we expect the typical user of the emulator to already have game
> >ROMs on hand? If so, by what means?
>
> Do you really want to know and control the means, by which
> debian user
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:34:16AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1:
> >> 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must
> >>not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
> >>software wit
Lex Spoon wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>
> Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
> author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
> fee; it doe
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> > call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
>
> Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
> subject, then a vote,
batist wrote:
> It's a bit like the
> contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
> the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
> legal in civil law.
Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-)
This corresponds with
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:43:16AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Three people have already replied to this message, giving the "global
> > request" case. Once again, you're spamming the list, sending dozens
> > of messages without actually reading threads so you don't waste everyone's
> > tim
Package: abiword
Version: 2.0.7+cvs.2004.05.05-1
Severity: serious
Please see the following mailing list discussion.
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>For example, "Abiword" is a
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:32:24PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is
> > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
> > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Lucas Nussbaum:
>>
>> > IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
>> > GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
>>
>> It looks like a fallback close simil
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 01:11:24PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I dislike DDs who want this list to engage in a conspiracy of silence
> and denial, never look at existing packages and so on. It helps me if
> everyone who wants to understand these issues does. If we
> misunderstand something, then I'd
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:56:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hmmm. I'm not sure blanket acceptance of "closed-universe" projects is
> really a good idea. I'm not sure it serves our users very well, and I'm
> pretty confident it doesn't serve the Free Software community very well.
>
> At t
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
> > players removed from Debian main?
>
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
> render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you can make
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Since the contract does not give me obligations, you cannot
> > enforce anything. But I can enforce it against you if you
> > later say I am not licensed.
> I think that is the key point. In common-law countries, both sides must
> have obligat
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:32:30PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I never meant to imply that debian-legal was actually doing this, since I
> don't
> have any examples (in no small part because I haven't gone looking for them)
> but rather that the post I replied to was demonstrating the kind of ar
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:07:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > 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
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, and the right to sue the author i
* Josh Triplett:
>>>The Dictator Test:
>>>
>>> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
>>> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
>>> applicable laws.
>>
>> What about warranty disclaimers? Or quite reasonable clauses dealing
>> with p
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:16:38AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I don't think it's a magic spell that
> > makes you imune from being sued.
> Nope.
I suppose this why some of the less-friendly licensors inject choice-of-law
and choice-of-venue clauses into their licenses.
It's a comfortable
[debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >]
It should also be noted that because this license is GPL-incompatible[1],
any GNU GPL-licensed code in it, that is not copyrighted by van Hauser is
being used in violation of the GNU GPL. That means we cannot distribute
this package even
On 2004-07-10 23:13:50 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
IMHO, Debian logos should be DFSG-free. Their appropriate use should
be
enforced via trademark laws, not copyright ones, if this is possible.
Great. Please review
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-20
* Nathanael Nerode:
> You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't
> say "You agree not to sue..." or "You agree that there is no
> warranty..."
Wrong, there are certainly some cases:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF A
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> 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.
But isn't the Dictator Test trying to prevent that?
License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is,
they are
[self-followup]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:10:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >]
[...]
> Under the Free Software Foundation's interpretation of the GNU GPL, this is
> also true if Hydra links against GNU GPL-licensed libraries.
I check
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
> (just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
> the same deficiencies. An example for a "good" package is the xfree
> Packages;
Does this re
Hi guys,
I'm currently using the following license statement on the Debian X FAQ[1].
I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
could be left out
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:07:03AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 a
On 2004-07-11 10:59:22 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
[...]
At some point of
On 2004-07-11 15:54:05 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This looks like a weak definition of source code: what is *required*
so
as to modify a program written in C?
I agree, this looks like a lawyerbomb.
Moreover, I think it should say explicitly "the GNU General Public
Lice
* Branden Robinson:
>> What about warranty disclaimers?
>
> What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding
> copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards?
It depends on who receives a license. For end users, the warranty
disclaimers are completely without ef
(bug CC dropped)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:10:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >]
Somewhat conveniently, this is an example of the type of license I was
thinking of in my previous post of whether the LGPL is compatible with
a non-GPL v
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, 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.
Thank you for doi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>> On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we
>> > could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
> > packaging in main of appropriate content.
>
> The Debian Policy says something pr
On 2004-07-12 04:32:30 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license
this late in
the sarge release process is no small matter.
It probably doesn't matter too much. debian-legal and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] both seem not to move pa
On 2004-07-12 05:07:03 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Once again, you're spamming the list, sending dozens
of messages without actually reading threads so you don't waste
everyone's
time with repetition. This is a very bad habit; please break it.
I don't remember "must
On Jul 12, 04 01:20:48 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
Thanks, Brandon :-)
> > For illustration, let me invent the Country of Sillyness.
> > There copyright law generally permits software vendor
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The wording of the test is simply not clear enough. After all, it was
> motivated by a mere notice which was arguably not even part of the
> license text. I'm not sure if it's against such licenses, certain
> licensing conditions i
On 2004-07-12 08:18:21 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why, particularly, should he deviate from the fine example set by
Craig
Sanders and other supporters of Proposal D?
Craig Sanders himself voted Further Discussion as second preference
and ignored all other outcomes, de
On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose
that
GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
I think restrospectively justifying a "Holier than Stallman" tag with
such a decision is un
Branden Robinson wrote:
>Sounds good. You may or may not want to take into account the Debian Wiki
>page on DFSG-free licenses[1], and what it has to say about the QPL.
I disagree with this to some extent:
> The DFSG-freeness of this license has been called into question. Some
> people appear
On 2004-07-12 09:00:02 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Data point: I can't scare up the reference at the moment, but The
XFree
Project, Inc., asserted that the warranty disclaimer was a
"condition" of
the MIT/X11 license.
If a condition, let's try trimming to just relevant
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>I believe the more reliable DFSG#3 is to the point. It requires the
>right to make derived works--any derived works, not "derived works,
>as long as you're willing to give the initial developer a copy".
I'm not sure I buy this. Surely the GPL #7 effectively restricts the
sc
Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
>If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
>happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to distribute it
>before he's ready! This is no issue at all.
Am I reading a different license here? The copy of the QPL at
http://www.trol
On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend
it for
usage more broadly. [...]
Confusing but probably consistent. I wouldn't be happy recommending
thi
On 2004-07-12 09:18:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS
| LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY SUBJECT SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER
EXCEPT
| UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.
(SGI's GLX license.)
Does such a wording really make diff
* Branden Robinson:
> In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another w
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
> applicable laws.
>
> License grantors do not have a priva
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:26:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Now, in the UK, can you agree to the license for purposes of the licensed
> activities *without* losing your right to sue regarding any statutory
> warranties which would cover fair dealing, library privilege, or other
> always-per
> > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
> > point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> s/^A /A free /
>
> Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
>
> I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
> usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
> could be left out, and kept
On 2004-07-12 10:48:57 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I mentioned on IRC, we shipped QT in main under the QPL before the
GPL was added. I don't think the above is a terribly convincing
argument. [...]
Given the apparent lack of comment either way, it seems null as data.
> 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.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Which is either really heavy, and
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> > work; see se
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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' o
Branden Robinson writes:
> If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free
> Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that
> he or she never received the corresponding copyright license?
Can you elaborate on the situation you have in mind?
Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
like to propose replacing them with:
1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and invite further
di
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never at
On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment, which I think might
be Branden's aim.
I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
>
> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
Glenn Maynard writes:
> The only reasons the LGPL is GPL-compatible are 1: the LGPL-to-GPL downgrade
> clause (LGPL#3), and 2: the "operating system" exception (GPL#3), which is
> irrelevant for Debian. A work under a modified GPL would lose #1, as well,
> so it seems that the LGPL would be incom
On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Followup-For: Bug #227159
The compilers are also distributed under the QPL, which is
And ? What is the problem ? Even RMS and the FSF is not cl
On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
you mean BY-SA? That shares the troubl
I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
combines with the fees of 6c and 3b to conflict with DFSG #3.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
>> Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
>
> ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
> you mean BY-SA? T
* Brian T. Sniffen:
> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
> of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>
>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>> of the softwa
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>>
>>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a
On 2004-07-12 05:26:00 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] If I remember correctly, implied
warranties are incurred by distribution, not by licensing, at least
in the
US. (Is this true in Britain as well?)
I'm not sure, but I believe they happen when any sale occurs or
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
factual history. Cle
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any case, the attitude that "kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary
> thought" strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project
> went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our
> response
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
