Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to
> be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
> for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
> copyright", but copyright is all we hav
Walter Landry wrote:
You are correct. It is no longer the case when the work is
unmodified. However, Debian does modify Kaffe. Even if all of those
modifications were incorporated upstream, Debian still must be able to
make security fixes. A security fix would kick Eclipse out of main,
which re
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:56PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
> too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
If you're talking about the scope of copyright law, or the relevance of
the license granted by the GPL, you're tal
Walter Landry wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to run' is too broad,
as you attempt to stretch it in the same direc
I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
meet Debian's requirements, further modifying it based on feedback[1].
This modi
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> This is not a criticism of Eric - as Firefox package maintainer, his
> opinion is clearly important. But is this sort of thing merely something
> one has to accept when dealing with Debian, or is there anyone in
> authority who c
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
> listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
> maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
> meet Debian's requirements, fu
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, that is not the case. All of the source for packages
> in main must satisfy the DFSG. For example, if there are some
> non-free, but distributable, files in the original tar ball, those
> have to be taken out and a new "original" tar ball
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the props, however. I continue to believe that a DFSG analysis
>> is the *beginning* of a process of understanding whether something is free
>> software or not, not a substitute for the whole th
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
> member[2].
I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
MIA from the New Maintainer queue.
http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=medwards-debian%40sane.net
Then
MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to
>>be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
>>for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
>>copyright", but copyrig
Walter Landry wrote:
> Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline. I can
> compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the
> result. I can also distribute GNU readline separately. But I can not
> distribute foo and GNU readline together. How is this diffe
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>(Incidentally, is not gjc in main? It seems a likely candidate to
>>substitute for Kaffe if you wish for another GPL-free way to execute
>>Eclipse.)
>
> I don't think gjc can handle Eclipse. If it can, why not Sable-VM or
>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> *yawn* That's a nice line in rhetoric you have there. The DFSG is the
> standard that DDs have agreed should be the basis for deciding on the
> Freeness of Software. If you want to extend it, you know what to
So you're saying that t
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
> listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
> maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
> meet Debian's requirements,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:14:15PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This has come up several times, so I'm CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get their
> take on this. FSF folks: please ignore the documentation aspect above;
> I'm interested in the general problem of people "specifying" the preferred
> form
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms
> > seem extend software patents into places which don't have them
> > yet, but do have software copyright. [...]
> That seems like a reasonable argument. However, I don't
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:52:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> These licences are not normally so considerate as to limit
> themselves to swpat claims. Even the RPSL, which seems one of
> the less offensive ones, says "any patent". I wouldn't mind so
> much if I only lost patent permission that I didn't
Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be
everything to everyone and that's why they don't work?
Francesco Poli wrote:
> When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e.
> program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its
> (DFSG-)freeness. [...
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences
> with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free
> or non-free software without too much effort.
I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences
> > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free
> > or non-free software without too much ef
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I must admit I'm finding this a bit frustrating. I came to debian-legal,
> listened to what people (including, I believe, the Thunderbird package
> maintainer) were saying, and drew up a document[0] which I hoped would
> meet Deb
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for
> an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a
> possible lawsuit.
Licenses *are* confusing. Not our fault, nor can we do anything about
i
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:46:47PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual
> > unless terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted
> > hereunder will terminate:
>
> > (d) upon written notice from Licensor if You, at any
24 matches
Mail list logo
