Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> >> distributed source code be provided to the government.
> >
> >Except that there are no s
Sean Kellogg wrote:
reading this Draft Summary really set me off.
I'm sincerely sorry about that. Let me point out that I was originally extremely
hostile to most of the objections posited to the Attribution 1.0 license, most
of which are replicated in this draft summary:
http://li
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> > >> distributed sou
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Please don't bother writing to me again.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:17AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not
> good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license
> grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by
> Captain
>
> #index top up prev next
>
> ___
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
>
>
> #index top up prev next
>
> ___
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
>
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction.
> >> >Again, guidelines. (If the
On Jul 19, 2004, at 13:40, Branden Robinson wrote:
Provided the additional restriction did not fail the DFSG in and of
itself,
I don't see why such a license necessarily would fail the DFSG. We'd
have
to judge this sort of situation on a case by base basis.
Unless -- we want to assert that
On Jul 13, 2004, at 05:49, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with
Request
| Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are
the
| copyright holder for th
> > Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in
> > Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:27:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion
> and I do not believe it to be the consen
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I note an interesting problem: The maintainer will not be
> able to send patches sent to the BTS upstream, as he is not the
> copyright holder for those contributions.
I'm not certain most bug-fix patches are copyrightable -- for example,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
> distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to drag
this co
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0
licenses.
The summary is also available here:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
~ESP
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
>> distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
>
> I don't have a particular one nor am
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're going to suggest that a compiler licence should give some
> general BSD-like permission for copyrightable stuff that gets inserted
> into the output, then the problem is that someone might modify the
> compiler so that it outputs itself
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I'm think of an analogy with a certain children's toy called a spirograph.
>> > You may have heard of it, or maybe not. It basical
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distri
Last year, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
> Suppose we have:
>
> licence A that forces you to release modifications under a
> BSD-licence to the whole world
>
> licence B that forces you to release modifications under a
> BSD-licence to the original authors and a GPL-licence to the whole
> world
>
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > > On 2004-0
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:06 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And i can't take you seriously as long as people like Brian are allowed to
> participate in this discussion which such low-quality contributions.
What's this part all about? If his posts really bother you that much
and
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:32:15 +0100, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Extraordinarily poorly formatted post]
Bugger, bugger, bugger. Sorry about the atrocious layout. I'm sure
it's pretty obvious, but just in case not: everything after the first
paragraph shouldn't have been there.
--
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a
>>problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive
>>license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an
>>all-permi
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:26:52 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > If you're selling the hard copies then you can probably afford to
> > > include a CD.
> >
> > I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that also
> > include CD production, but I could be wrong.
>
> Keep in mind that
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:06:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Under the GPL, the gove
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the
> modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses
> when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name
> -- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
> world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
> them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it
> offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more g
Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
> licence, and they are other who don't.
Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would
want to take the softw
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>The exception I mentioned would be for web application-type software.
>>I am somewhat biased since the free software I write and maintain is
>>in that category, but I think it is justifiable for a license to
>>r
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
>>also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
>>tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial
>>devel
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Given the GPL we seem to have accepted the premise that a license
>>may require all modifications to be distributed under the same
>>license as the original work itself.
>
> That also seems like a reasonable conclusion. An in
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
>>>distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
>>>permissions grant.
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
>>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
>>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help.
>
> I don't think that th
Florian Weimer wrote:
In software documentation, an original author could require that
changelogs or discussion of differences in design or implementation
("Original Author had it this way; the new version does it this other
way") be removed.
Replacing "Evan Prodromou" with "Original Author" w
Josh Triplett writes:
> How about something vaguely like:
>
> """
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machin
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
>>
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
>>request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
>>want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
>>otherwise. F
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:24:23AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I'm not certain most bug-fix patches are copyrightable -- for example,
> if an author has typed "if (x = 0) ..." and I fix that to "if (0 == x)
> ..." then I haven't really contributed anything creative, and I don't
> think I
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything
>> other than the code they cover.
>
>I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1]
>But regardless, there isn't a re
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
>>>for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imp
> "Edmund" == Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edmund> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm
>> still interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of
>> the QPL discussion. I think some of these
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
>> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than
>> "distribute source too".
>
>I'll certainly throw
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
>> knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
>> information an important one?
>
>I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>
> > How about something vaguely like:
> >
> > """
> > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> > to t
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I fail to see how this is a "grievous restriction" because
>> common courtesy already tells us to honor such requests..
>
> Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the upstream
> author doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:40:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
reasonable. We've asked many software authors to do similar things in the
past, with very frequent success, and less laughter and anger than you
seem to think.
>>>
>>>Yes, but it is by no means reas
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>How about something vaguely like:
>>
>>"""
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>>
>>a) Distribute the compl
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>The correct course of action is for d-legal to make a reasonable suggestion,
>>
>>Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
>>suggestion, so i have some doubts about this.
>
> Yes
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
> [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and
> [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL.
>
> This thr
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which
> claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler,
> for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products
> for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarri
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:37:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be
> "distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> original software" seems to be an important component of Freedom. I
> really do think, on consideration, th
Greetings,
I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html
which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause
3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses 3 and 4 of
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Under the GPL, the government can just
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:32:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which
> claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler,
> for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products
> for commercial
> "Brian" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be
Brian> "distributed under the same terms as the license of the
Brian> original software" seems to be an important component of
Brian> Freedom. I real
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the
> licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as
> they respect the licence, should not be fur
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because
> > it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case,
> > a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional
> > permissio
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
> >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
> >>the DFSG?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such
> > thing.
> > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action
> > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-r
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
> particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
> draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still
> working on: a well-
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of
> >> dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands
> >> who have a binary CD but not a source one.
> >
> >If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which
>> claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler,
>> for example, has an expensive license if you wish to bui
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html
>
> which argues that clause 6 gives addi
66 matches
Mail list logo
