On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > And of course there's the absurd situation where a manufacturer decides to
> > move firmware from a device from a ROM to a CD and Debian suddenly cannot
> > provide a driver for it
> Most likely, Debian IS able to provide a driver for it. Well, unless
Josh Triplett writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
>
> The question being "is this acceptable to go into non-free"?
exactly.
[...]
> Up to this point, the license seems acceptable for non-free; it seems to
> permit redistribution o
Raul Miller wrote:
[snip]
> Are you saying that copyright law is always equivalent to a bilateral
> contract?
Far from it. I am saying that:
the legally recognized mechanism for granting a copyright license,
in any jurisdiction I have heard named, is a contract;
there is ample precedent,
Raul -
With regard to secondary publication, if you had in mind sublicensing
by the licensee, I know of no case in which a right to sublicense was
found without reference to a valid bilateral contract. (The Effects
case comes closest, if you buy Kozinski's argument and read a form of
implied lice
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property
> > > right in ideas or expression was widely recognized
> >
> > That's not accurate. You're dismissing the previous widely recognized
> > property rights be
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:11:11AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 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 uncr
Hi Joey,
Just to add to this info, Debianshop has the same contact details (address,
phone)
as CheapLinux (www.cheaplinux.com) which incidentally recognises the Linux
trademark by adding at the bottom of all its pages: 'Linux is a trademark of
Linus
Torvalds. All trademarks acknowledged.'
sorr
* Henning Makholm:
> | 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
> | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
> | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
> | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
> | Electronic Distribut
* Simon Josefsson:
>> It may be the case that the data could be plucked from the RFC and
>> freely distributed, albeit only in places that don't allow 'sweat of the
>> brow' copyrights.
>
> I know I answered this already, but I thought I'd add that
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested that the tables f
* Matthew Palmer:
> 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 uncr
Florian Weimer wrote:
> In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
> database. A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
> and this is sufficient.
But I'm not sure that the "producer" of this database (the RFC
or the table in it) is a resident or national of
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> In Germany, I would be very surprised if it wasn't protected as a
>> database. A significant effort was necessary to create the mapping,
>> and this is sufficient.
>
> But I'm not sure that the "producer" of this database (the RFC
> or the table in
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
> > Since they are US-based, ISOC cannot enjoy any database rights
> > until the US adopts their own database protection that's at least
> > as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).
>
> Unfortunately, German law does not take
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
>> Unfortunately, German law does not take into account whether the
>> database owner is a German national or not.
>
> Can you give me a cite for that? I was under the impression that
> Germany had simply translated the Directive literally into national
> law. And from http://
* Andreas Barth:
> As far as I know, sourceforges policy is to host only software free for
> everybody. Though their policy is not the same as ours, I think this
> violates even their policy.
SourceForge also offers paid hosting for proprietary software. I'm
pretty sure that appearance on the so
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:04:21 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property
> > > > right in ideas or expression was widely recognized
> > >
> > > That'
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> "Depends" and "Build-Depends" are not necessarily the entirety of the
> Social Contract's idea of dependency.
We're not saying they are. (For example, that would imply that the tech
ctte would have a great deal of power over the DFS
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 04:45:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > As far as I know, sourceforges policy is to host only software free for
> > everybody. Though their policy is not the same as ours, I think this
> > violates even their policy.
>
> SourceForge also offers pai
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
> DFSG-free.
No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
The situation, roughly, is that while the MPL
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:22:27PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If there's a parallel between ICQ servers and hardware, it seems to me
> that the ICQ server is like a physical hardware device which requires
> no firmware.
>
> If (all) ICQ servers required that I send it a copy, as a bitstream,
I just run over some problem I'd like to get discussed here, as it
might effect wheather some GFDL documents are distributeable at
all and thus wheather they could be included in the non-free
section or the sarge distribution.
Consider a (hypothetical[1]) package with some info-page having the
f
On Jan 07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll assume for the moment you are only disagreeing with the
> driver->firmware dependencies, not the client->server dependencies,
> since the latter is standard Debian policy.
No. What I'm saying is that if you stretch the definition of
"requi
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
>> DFSG-free.
>
> No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Luke Schierer wrote:
> The aim/icq servers do not currently, but could at the flip of a switch
> (and have in the past), required you to send a hash of a specified
> segment of a specified file from the official (copyrighted) winaim
> client. If I am und
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
> >> DFSG-free.
> >
> > No, the MPL is not clear
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your following up. I'm including
the Debian team on this email, in the hope that I can help
to drive everyone to agreement on the point at last. I don't
have an email address for Dave Turner, so would be grateful
if you'd pass this along to him. I've included the licen
Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the extent that the FSF is willing and able to clarify
> the point on documentation with the Debian leadership, [...]
That's nice to hear, but I think we got the point: FSF want to
be able to include unmodifiable adverts in manuals. (I know the
adverts ar
There are two issues here: the DFSG-freeness of the CC SA-A license
and the GPL-compatibleness of that license. I can't speak to its
freeness right now, since I don't have time to read the 2.0 version in
its entirety. But it's clearly not GPL compatible. To be clear, by
"not GPL compatible" I me
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>>CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
>>
>>The question being "is this acceptable to go into non-free"?
>
> exactly.
OK.
> I asked to clarify the paragraph, the current text now has append "an
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:36:10PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>>I disagree that the driver would Depends: on the firmware.
>
> Well, maybe we're coming closer to the root of our disagreement. I
> thought it was self-evident that, if a driver is packaged (on its own[1]),
>
Michael Poole wrote:
> 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
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'll assume for the moment you are only disagreeing with the
>>driver->firmware dependencies, not the client->server dependencies,
>>since the latter is standard Debian policy.
>
> No. What I'm saying is that if you stretc
33 matches
Mail list logo
