Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
So would a web-based firmware loader, that never saved the firmware to
disk allow the drivers to be in main?
Of course not. It's fetching software, then using that software. ICQ
software merely mentions messages, but doesn't use them.
ICQ uses the messages as i
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The social contract says "...but we will never make the system depend on
an item of non-free software." not "but we will never make the system
depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute
Josh Triplett wrote:
I would like to suggest an additional option, which I think covers most
cases quite well:
If Debian were to package (a copy of) the non-free item in the non-free
section, would the Free package express a Depends, Recommends, or
Build-Depends on the non-free package? If so,
On ср, 2005-01-05 at 23:25 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Fabio Tranchitella ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050105 20:50]:
> > Here there is the text grabbed from that page:
> >
> > """
> > While phpLDAPadmin costs 49.95 for commercial download, we are providing
> > it for free to home users. If you purcha
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:03:44PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Note that this email message is subject to copyright, and can't legally
> be reprinted without permission (except for fair use, such as quotation
> rights). Under pre-1986 US law, it would be public domain, because I
> didn't affi
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:44:38AM +0200, Iassen Pramatarov wrote:
> > > While phpLDAPadmin costs 49.95 for commercial download, we are providing
> > > it for free to home users. If you purchase the commercial download, you
> > > get the added benefit of support from the original developers.
> Wh
MJ Ray wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, the trademark FAQ doesn't tell me how to build without
including the proprietary logos. Can anyone tell me how?
Spotted another thread (mail is slow here this week) and replaced
the branding dir. Rebuild underway. Still need to repla
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me clarify. :-)
>
> I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> *claim* copyright.
>
> My complaint is about material distributed willy-nilly by its authors with
> *no* copyright
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:57:12PM -0800, Elizabeth Fong wrote:
> Jonathan Oxer:
> > The big question though (and this is where legal advice may be required)
> > is what happens to copyright when the copyright owner ceases to exist?
It is auctioned off by the liquidators, along with all other prop
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'm not referring to those who sell proprietary licenses to a separate
> version of the software; I'm referring to those who use a copyleft
> license and sell exceptions for people who want to link their
> proprietary software against that
On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
>
> Alternatively, if the names are changed to
> firebird/tbird/mozzarella or an
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:20:37 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The only case where what you say holds is where the licensee
> purchasing the proprietary license would have otherwise used the GPL
> license and released source. Which case--encouraging companies to GPL
> source, or funding the further dev
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:21:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > I'm not referring to those who sell proprietary licenses to a separate
> > version of the software; I'm referring to those who use a copyleft
> > license and sell excepti
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2005 01:30:02 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
>
> At present, it seems we re
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
our users in any
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
>logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> - The names can be found in files called b
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using MF's trademarks seems to require some sort of licence to
> > be granted specifically to debian and not to its users. That
> > seems not to follow DFSG 7 or 8, doesn't it?
> I don't see why. We don't require tha
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:28:35 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I believe it would be useful for the Debian community to let the IETF
> know about Debian's position on this. Preparing a statement and
> posting it to the IETF IPR working group seem appropriate, and would
> be appreciated.
I agree: we
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see why. We don't require that trademark licenses be granted to
>> our users in any case - us having an extra permission above and beyond
>> the freedoms we expect for our users doesn't seem to be a problem.
>
MJ Ray wrote:
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- The default build for Firefox and Thunderbird uses non-trademarked
logos
Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
The default build removes the
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>So would a web-based firmware loader, that never saved the firmware to
>>>disk allow the drivers to be in main?
>> Of course not. It's fetching software, then using that software.
>> ICQ software merely mentions messages, but doesn't use them.
>
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I download an ICQ client, there are lots of reasons I might find it
> useful: I might not have anything to say, or I might have no network
> connection, or I might have no friends to talk to. Debian is not
> responsible for providing me with cr
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> No. Firmware resident in RAM but put there by, say, the BIOS is
> fine. We've elected not to ignore firmware which is to be handled and
> installed by Debian software. You're having trouble making a coherent
> position out of this only because you keep recasting i
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:54:19PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> aren't equivalent. The issue at hand is whether somebody might ever
> download software from Debian and find it useless without additional
> software which he could download... but not from Debian, since it's
> not Free and no
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:42:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
> > No. Firmware resident in RAM but put there by, say, the BIOS is
> > fine. We've elected not to ignore firmware which is to be handled and
> > installed by Debian software. You're having trouble m
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:42:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> > > No. Firmware resident in RAM but put there by, say, the BIOS is
> > > fine. We've elected not to ignore firmware which is to be handled and
> > > installed by Debian
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:48:40 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The classical forms of intellectual property -- copyright, patent,
> > trademark, and trade secrets -- were developed to protect very
> > different
* Elizabeth Fong:
> So... I guess the question is, what _can_ we do?
How much code are we talking about? Perhaps a clean room
reimplementation is the cheapest solution.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:14:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:57:12PM -0800, Elizabeth Fong wrote:
> > Jonathan Oxer:
> > > The big question though (and this is where legal advice may be required)
> > > is what happens to copyright when the copyright owner ceases to
[Please keep either debian-legal or myself in the CC list; I'm not
subscribed to debian-devel.]
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>> So would a web-based firmware loader, that never saved the firmware to
>>> disk allow the drivers to be in main?
>>
>> Of course not. It's fe
Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
http://www.aros.org/license.html
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:39:04 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > Presumably this would result in a formula for copyright maintenance
> > similar to that now in place for trademark maintenance. Personally, I
> > would not like to see this happen.
>
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:14:41PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:48:40 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > The classical forms of intellectual property -- copyright, patent,
> > >
* Joel Aelwyn:
> Or convince someone (quite possibly the origional author) that it is worth
> their time to re-implement it. Doing work for hire means you don't own that
> copy, but it is in no way a prohibition against you making another copy on
> your own time, even if it were to look almost com
* Lewis Jardine:
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of
> them, which may have taken a lot of effort to gather, is
Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
>
> http://www.aros.org/license.html
Likely problems:
> 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent
> infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions)
> against Initial Developer or a Cont
Hi Florian,
> How much code are we talking about? Perhaps a clean room
> reimplementation is the cheapest solution.
Unfortunately a non-trivial amount (about 15k lines), and not simple
code either - it's pretty tightly written, and it requires an intimate
knowledge of the internal workings of th
* Michael Poole:
[something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL]
> Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
> DFSG.
But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the
MPL (although I haven't compared the licenses word-for-word).
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Michael Poole:
>
> [something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL]
>
> > Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
> > DFSG.
>
> But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the
> MPL (although I haven't compar
On Jan 06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An ICQ client wouldn't Depends: icq-server; it might Suggests:
> icq-server, but that's OK. A driver might at most Suggests:
> burned-in-firmware-for-reflashing, but it would Depends: or at a minimum
> Recommends: firmware-loaded-by-driver.
I
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there are thousands of
> them, which may have taken a lo
Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
>>On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:42:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
software which he could download... but not from Debian, since it's
not Free and not packaged.
>>>
>>>Why do you insist on the "downloadable" part of
Josh Triplett writes:
> If the ICQ server were packaged in the Debian non-free section, would
> you make ICQ clients Depends: or Recommends: on the ICQ server? If not,
> then if the ICQ server were packaged, the ICQ client would still be in
> main. Therefore, the ICQ client can be in main.
A, e
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>An ICQ client wouldn't Depends: icq-server; it might Suggests:
>>icq-server, but that's OK. A driver might at most Suggests:
>>burned-in-firmware-for-reflashing, but it would Depends: or at a minimum
>>Recommends: firmware
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an offer of (bilateral) contract, duly accepted
by the licensee, in return fo
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:19:04PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
> derived works) is as a
Michael Poole wrote:
> Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
>>
>>http://www.aros.org/license.html
>
>
> Likely problems:
>
>
>> 8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent
>> infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions)
>
Scripsit Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
>
> http://www.aros.org/license.html
In addition to the patent termination, I don't thinkt this is a free
condition:
| 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
| Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must b
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>If the ICQ server were packaged in the Debian non-free section, would
>>you make ICQ clients Depends: or Recommends: on the ICQ server? If not,
>>then if the ICQ server were packaged, the ICQ client would still be in
>>main. Therefore, the ICQ client
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lewis Jardine:
>
> > In the case of data tables, in many jurisdictions, a mere collection of
> > facts is not copyrightable; the classic example is a telephone directory
> > (everything in it is an uncreative fact; that there ar
Andrew Suffield wrote (in response to me):
> You imply that "protecting intangible assets" is an improvement, and
> that this was not done before, but neither of those are particularly
> accurate.
No, I imply that an asset is a property right, and that the previous
regimes didn't create property r
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If the firmware we have packaged in non-free comes standard on the
> device, then the driver does not need a copy of the firmware, so it does
> not have a dependency on it.
Hm? The driver does need a copy of the firmware. It needs a copy that is
present
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such
>>> Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly
>>> infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such
>>> Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > If the firmware we have packaged in non-free comes standard on the
> > device, then the driver does not need a copy of the firmware, so it does
> > not have a dependency on it.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:21:52PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Hm? The d
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > Josh Triplett writes:
> >>If the ICQ server were packaged in the Debian non-free section, would
> >>you make ICQ clients Depends: or Recommends: on the ICQ server? If not,
> >>then if the ICQ server were packaged, the ICQ client
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we're also distributing files that the user can't modify without
> renaming, so I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. If Mozilla's
> /copyright/ license said "You may not modify this without renaming it,
> unless you have a separate agreement with
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you sure? The graphics seem to have the words "Firefox" in them,
> > which doesn't seem a permitted use of the trademark to me.
> The default build removes the trademarked logos (the fox-on-globe or the
> bird-on-envelope) but not
58 matches
Mail list logo
