On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 06:37:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:07:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > I am not sure why some
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:04:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > >... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
> > > >against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
> > > >infringes a patent.
> > > >
> > > > Please not "or any licensee". Thi
[ -legal: please let the CCs intact and CC: me, I am not subscribed ]
Hi,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=255451 contains a wish to
include hspell support (upstream issue
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25832) into our
OpenOffice.org packages and I want to do t
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 21. September 2004 12:28 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Why not? If all of OOo is LGPL, then the license allows you to
> distribute under the terms of the GPL, so linking with another GPL
> library is ok.
Hmm...
> What are the advantages of hspell (which I've never heard of) over ot
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Diskussion:Debian_logo.png
(Although
this page is in German, you may add English comments to it).
GFDL and
Debian Logo
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; cha
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of
> debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
>
> Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/lice
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:25:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > > I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
> contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no
> restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to
> bargain in a license, to say "I'll give you a license to this stuff,
> but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own" a
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
>> > users, not excluding "bad" ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
>> > termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
>>
>> forfeits the right to
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
>> I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
>> since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
>>
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
> minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
> recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
> And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.
During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
numb
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
>
> Oops, left part out. This should say something like:
>
> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
> license in
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
> software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
> difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
> without any real cost.
>
> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for fr
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
>> > lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
>> > costs.
>>
>> It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Now, there's a practical issue: the copyright holder may change, so
> the copyright holder isn't the original licensor--if I buy the copyright
> for the work, the existing licensees aren't going to suddenly get a
> license to *my* patents, as well. (I don't presently agree w
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> No, to infringe your bogus software patent.
I agree here.
If I'm suing someone on the grounds that the software they wrote is
illegal, it's probably a bad idea for me to be distributing their
software.
--
Raul
On 2004-09-21 19:09:18 +0100 Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the documentation was to remain GFDL licenced, would be possible to
add a clarification to the licence in order to counter the main
problems which would affect this work? [...]
In general, I think they should grant exceptio
Date index for period starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00835
There were 7 threads with more than 3 posts:
cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation, over 40 posts from 1 Sep to 3 Sep,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg3.html
GPL-licensed packages wi
Date index for this period starts
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/maillist.html#00114
There were 6 threads with more than 3 posts:
GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL, over 30 posts this
week to 12 Sep,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00121.html
Fr
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
>> preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
>> all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
>> Work.
> non-free: "all available documentation" seems to
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
>> Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
>> whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
>> any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
>> contr
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
> I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
> giving the
Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> Hi
> I'm packaging portaudio (ITP #269925), and have been informed by Junichi
> Uekawa that there might be a problem with the license. It's basically a
> BSD license with the following additional clause:
>
> Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Softwar
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 13:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
> licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.
>
> During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
> problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
> nu
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
>>> I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
>>> since you are tryi
Michael Poole wrote:
> Loss of patent license means the user cannot use the software. Loss
> of copyright license (at least in the USA) only removes the license of
> a user to modify or copy the software further. I do not see how the
> former is narrower than the latter,
I suppose you could cop
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing
about schrodinger's ca
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
> the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being p
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the
odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks
("Originals") where modification may actually change the original.
It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute
copies (modified
Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 7. Sub-licensing
>>
>> Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who
>> wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound
>> to the author of the original work.
>
> This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based o
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of "license NIH"' refer to?
>
> "not invented here"; people writing their own licenses, or modifying
> them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the
>> > terms of the GPL.
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived work of the GP
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Choice of law is considered DFSG-free, which binds the license to the
> law of one place.
...provided that place's law isn't known to cause the license to have a
non-free legal interpretation when it would otherwise be interpreted to be
free (of course)...
> That isn't the p
Brian M Hunt wrote:
> Or perhaps more succinctly, whether or not the
> cost of legally enforceable dispute resolution is a suitable restriction
> on DFSG to prevent a license from reflecting "free software".
Yes, insofar as the law is the only thing enforcing the licenses. :-P
--
This space in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Thanks Joe and MJ, your replies were very helpful, and much
appreciated.]
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 13:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
>> licensed und
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:32:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Well, then the question is, is that combined program a derived work of
>> the GPLed program?
>>
>> If it consists of two pieces: the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library
>> -- and each exists and is fully f
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:55, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Specifically, would it be possible to
> >> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >>counter the "DRM restriction"?
> >> 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:13:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Consider bash + script X + glibc -- this is mere aggregation.
This doesn't seem to be an interesting example.
Most scripts are so trivial, that [at least in the u.s.] they fall under
fair use.
I've never seen a bash-specific scr
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>>real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA
>>cryptosystem is a decent example of this.
>>
>>So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
>>minority. But t
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (Wait. I thought of a case: suppose the patent license requires
> a statement of credit -- and that's considered free -- and joe-rsa doesn't
> contain the credit statement. Then the RSA patent holders would sue to
> enforce their free patent license, and lose their free
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
>>>military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
>>>intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudab
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
> >> > lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, sig
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:48PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
> > software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
> > difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplish
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > It's
> > critically different from a copyleft, because there there isn't a
> > pre-existing property right.
> Actually, yes there is: it's called copyright. The default in copyright law
> is that a derivative work can only be p
Andrew Suffield writes:
> This is a very different scenario, where you could perform certain
> actions until you accepted the license. Your freedom has been reduced
> in a fundamental manner by this license. A copyleft license in no
> manner reduces your freedom; after accepting the license, you c
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Which can trivially be twisted to smite any lawsuit you care to bring,
> thereby granting them a de facto carte blanche license to do anything
> they like. We've been over this already.
I'd agree with you if I could find the clause
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
>> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
>> I'm only giving them away contingent
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
>> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
>
> That's the assertion in question, but it seems
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
> >> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
> >> I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
> >> unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's the assertion in question, but it se
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
> > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
> > claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
> The clause we
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
>> >> with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
>> >> I'm only giving them away
Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot
easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual
projects to put things in perspective with one another ...
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (Essentially, by buying the c
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
(Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails
concerning possible MUA problems ...)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> You haven't been reading my postings?
I doubt anyone is reading all of your postings, due to your well-known
bad habit
Nathanael, my CC to you bounced, because your ISP is using a bullshit
spam filter. I'm only forwarding this to make sure that you're aware
that you're losing legitimate mail because of it.
(Please don't tell me to use my ISP's SMTP servers; it's precisely to
avoid Nath-floods, and because ISP adm
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
> invite you to quote where you think I've done so.
That i
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Specifically, would it be possible to
> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
>counter the "DRM restriction"?
> 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk
>opaque copies?
>
> I
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Specifically, would it be possible to
> > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >counter the "DRM restriction"?
> > 2) Not require forcing distribut
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:48PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> On the other hand, lawsuits attempting to enforce "patents" on software
>> *are* intrinsically bad for free software.
>
> This argument says that since it's bad for nuclear power plant
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've been tricked by lawyers. This clause says that only the
> copyright holder may file patent lawsuits.
These licenses tend to include patent licenses. As a result, the
copyright holder /doesn't/ get to sue you (at least, not if they want to
win).
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 12:01:52PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> [ -legal: please let the CCs intact and CC: me, I am not subscribed ]
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=255451 contains a wish to
> include hspell support (upstream issue
> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug
Michael Poole wrote:
> I think we all agree that "If you sue the Original Author for any
> patent violation, you lose rights granted by this license" (e.g. RPSL
> 1.0) is not free, but that's different from either of the above.
Yes, we all agree on that. (Just to make it clear.)
--
This space i
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:06:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> Impossible for anonymous authors.
I'm not so sure.
Alternatively, there's no "the" name. I've a first name, middle name
and family name. With initials, and
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:32:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, then the question is, is that combined program a derived work of the
> GPLed program?
>
> If it consists of two pieces: the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library --
> and each exists and is fully functional without the other
69 matches
Mail list logo
