On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:05PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
> technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
> *which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
> license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
> L
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> I'm not sure which project Bruce refers to when he talks about the "project
> leader" here. I assume the "Debian project". Apparently. SPI will change the
> licence if the Debian project tells them to.
Debian-legal: should Martin Michlmayr, the DPL, be asked to change the
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
> should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
> what needs to be done to change the license, and I've asked Matthew
> Garrett to discuss the trademark issue with SPI's trademar
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, David Schleef wrote:
> > > For one thing, it's absolutely not possible to run the binary in
> > > such a way that openssl is not part of the process image.
> > Since when is Debian distributing linked process images?
> I have a lot of difficulty dicerning a legal difference bet
shermans-aquarium:
"The fish images are taken from a freeware windows screen saver by
Jim Toomey.(www.slagoon.com)...
...So the fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey, and released
in his screensaver as freeware. But he didn't give me permission to use
his graphics, but neither did he tell me
Kaquarium appears to contain graphics from shermans-aquarium,
but without the copyright notices
Plus upstream doesn't have any statement saying that it's under the GPL.
(Neither does kfish, by the same upstream.)
Clearly the ftpmasters don't have time to check whether NEW packages are
actuall
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:51:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
> > should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
> > what needs to be done to change the license, and I've
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a
> > non-original-author. But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original
> > author would use it.
>
> Indeed,
Save up to 75% on Inkjet, Laser & Copier Supplies
Quality Products, with 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
Easy, Fast, Affordable Shipping Worldwide
Plenty of Payment Options to Meet YOUR Needs!
>> SPECIAL: FREE Shipping to US & Canada on Orders over $50 <<
Visit us on the web at http://www.inkjetst
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
> any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
So you're saying, I think, that any v
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:05PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> No, the same thing does not happen with the GPL. Trolltech can take
> contributions under the QPL and include it both in the free X11
> version and the (very expensive) Windows version. If you tried to do
> that with the GPL, you wo
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
> > code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of
> > those
> > correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that ea
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:51:51PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
> a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
> not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees.
I think the DFSG#1's "may not res
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:15:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> No, I really am lost here. Is your argument:
>
> a) compulsion of provision of freedoms (as in the GPL, for instance) is
> non-free, or
>
> b) compulsion of provision one set of freedoms to some people and a
> different set to oth
Did you not call this a glorious expedition And wherefore was it glorious on what conditions the vacant lands within those boundaries made into English by his translator Morrison
the old syllabary continued to be used in Babylon hundreds of When actuated by selfish and vicious motives I ask
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
>
> At least we understand your sanity standard now ;)
It's fairly internally consistent...
>> Raul remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have consensus that we *want* to do this, and we have suggested several
> ways to do so while preserving trademark rights (basically, just saying "This
> doesn't grant a trademark license."). We've had this consensus for over a
> year, I believe
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
>
> Apparently Sven thinks that the "realities of debian release management"
> is allowed to override the Social Contract. Sven is mistaken.
I will be mistaken once there is a
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:27:55AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> > Here's the snarly bit:
> >
> > Take a copy of curl, not built with ssl support. Build your GPLed
> > application, linking it to this curl. There should unarguably be no
> > problems here - everything involve
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
>> > code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of
>> > those
>> > correspond to a de
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triple
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or
> the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to
> redistribute derived works under different terms than those I received
> myself; DSFG#3.
I'm still not sur
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:41:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the
> >> > original
> >> > code, or equaly so.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In any case, a more direct answer is that your original question about
>> the difference between grants of permissions and freedoms is
>> irrelevant. I was and am talking about the difference betwee
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
>>
>> Apparently Sven thinks that the "realities of debian release management"
>> is allowed to override the Social Contract. Sven i
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:41:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> >> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:52:47AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, G
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for
> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing
> software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to
> grant the initial author permission to relicense... but you
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 09:55 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But a requirement that I provide permissions over-and-above the
> freedoms I had is non-free.
Do you believe that this is non-free because of philosophical reasons,
or because DFSG 3 says so? I recognise that this is what DFSG 3 ap
Xcexafkto qyukhq wfyeq? enwlsjewu Ijzpsjfcmn lcczh
Do you know that the con g r ess. just
passed a new law and you can
jxrkiivsw Bnrdtafcw ucgmwoir ubhrbou
r e f
inance your - mo.
r t gage with Z ER O. ra
t e?
dotpbk nqdherfy sxxbc aoflnnv fobntm xifctw
More then 300,000 families used
this o
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for
>> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing
>> software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to
>> grant the
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for
> >> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing
> >> software under the QPL, and trigger
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for
> >> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing
>
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 11:57:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > >
> > >> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for
> > >> O'Caml, you can't apply it
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 11:57:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > I see no mention at all of binary distribution. It only mentions
> > distribution of the patch(es).
>
> Because 3b apply only when the patch is released under the QPL, and 4 forces
> you to use the QPL if you
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> There were demands that I point at the DFSG, and I did so. Now you
> want a practical example. Here's some attempts at one:
[...]
> * I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's no way
> for me to make XEm
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:49:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
> >
> > Apparently Sven thinks that the "realities of debian release management"
> > is allowed to override the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:20:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a
> > > non-original-author. But I'm afraid I
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:03:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But a requirement that I provide permissions over-and-above the
> > freedoms I had is non-free.
>
> Do you believe that this is non-free because of philosophical reasons,
> or because DFSG 3 says so? I recognise that this is what
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
> any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
OpenSSL, perhaps. It has a BSDish li
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (To be clear, patch clauses are explicitly free, for obvious reasons--though
> as I've said I'd like that to change. I think "you must patch, *and* you
> must permit me to incorporate your patches" goes beyond the DFSG exception.)
Right, but why? We hav
d-legal: CC'd for comments, since this is a topic that came up many
times during the GFDL discussions, and my initial recommendation of
using the same license for the wiki as the software originated there.
DFSG-freeness may be an issue at some point as well, since, as Stephane
observed, it's very l
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:10:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > (To be clear, patch clauses are explicitly free, for obvious reasons--though
> > as I've said I'd like that to change. I think "you must patch, *and* you
> > must permit me to incorporate your patches" goes beyond the DFSG except
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why I believe that portion of DFSG#4 is a huge error, and should be
> corrected. In my opinion (not the DFSG's, at present, per the exception),
> patch clauses are not free at all. As a result, I have a difficult time
> arguing the topic "are pat
Subject of the message: Re: Your bill
Recipient of the message: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Prohibited attachment: your_bill.pif
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:09:54AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> While I appreciate your honesty, It's not entirely clear to me that an
> excessively hardline viewpoint on the DFSG should be any more acceptable
> than an excessively liberal one. We're happy to discount the opinions of
> people wh
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My argument against "patch clauses with additional restrictions on the
> patches" is not in conflict with DFSG#4. I believe it's a completely
> reasonable interpretation that while DFSG#4 allows patch clauses, it does
> not allow patch clauses with yet m
pdwwlw oquadxg ygxxr kjnayvbn oqrdampi zvpuq
Do you know that the con g r ess. just
passed a new law and you can
pqphr txegzb saqysdzzb wpohxm hrsebgq
r e f
inance your - mo.
r t gage with Z ER O. ra
t e?
affdsgm Tinscuo ahnuvldc - Pmycdgl gyzfpz
More then 300 , 000 families used
this offer la
49 matches
Mail list logo
