On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
>
> > > In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
> > > opensource software, and th
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther escribía:
> > LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
> > that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
> > NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
I have contacted the author and am waiting to see whether he will change
the license. If not then we will either remove or move it to non-free.
Matt
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 200
On Thursday 15 September 2005 01:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are real-world examples that choice-of-venue clauses could be more
> > dangerous than without them. I'm not sure is DFSG can catch these
> > challenges, but it certainly should not be r
On Thursday 15 September 2005 12:19, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther
escribía:
> > > LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
> > > that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
> > > N
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from being
> sued in an arbitrary country*.
It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not
requiring users to actively drop whichever protection they *already* have.
--
Henni
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Your entire argument is based on the fact that it's nonsense for
> dynamic linking because replacing one external run-time library with
> another shouldn't change the copyright status of the program using it.
> Yes, it's nonsense - but you're the
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order to
>> get the freedoms we expect from software. That is a cost. It is a cost
>> I do not want to pay just to get some
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't like the idea of choice of venue clauses either, but I'm more
> uncomfortable with extending the DFSG to deal with things outside the realm
> of the basic freedoms we associate with software.
There is no extensions going on. It has ALWAYS been
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
escribía:
> > > That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
> > > main, but could be in non-free maybe.
> > Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow
> Right, as explai
On Sep 15, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I see nothing wrong libparse/*, just because the files have an
> >extra warranty disclaimer it does not mean that the package license does
> >not apply.
>
> Then you don't understand copyright law.
> The package copyright notice and licens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the
copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are
indeed some problems, but it's not bad, and I believe it can be fixed
with an upload that elides certain bits from the upstream sources
Thank you for subscribing. You have now unsubscribed and no more messages will
be sent.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Raul Miller ::
> On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
> > > > sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're
> > > > talking ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those
> > > > bits
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
> > question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
>
> Assume that programX is a complex (>1 SLOC
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:41PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
> escrib?a:
>
> > > > That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
> > > > main, but could be in non-free maybe.
> > > Probably not, ac
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including
> > libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c,
> > libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c.
> > These
** Raul Miller ::
> On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > > would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
> > > question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
> >
> > Assume that pr
On Sep 15, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
> copyright notice.
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
--
ciao,
Marco D'Itri wrote:
No, maybe it's you who do not understand english, or probably just like
armchair lawyering.
Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
copyright notice. Actually, it's
quite possible the authors of NTP d
> permission for a compilation work.
Copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare (original)
compilations (the term compilation includes collective works).
Compilation is entirely separate work from its constituents. You'd
need permission to prepare a derivative compilation (by modify
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
> > matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
> > for stuff you write yourself).
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've m
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > > The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
> > > matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
> > > for stuff you write
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
>groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable made up situation it is obv
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
>legal system.
Why not?
> That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses
>and supertrademarks.
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I especially liked the way you determine which arguments are correct
>> and which ones "standard responses"...
>The word 'correct' does not appear. A point is considered valid if it
>has no valid rebuttals. This is an elementary principle of debate.
s/correct/valid/
>I
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made without
if you sell, I meant.
> > Microsoft SDK which has "generous terms" (what are they, BTW?)...
>
> When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I sa
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Raul Miller ::
> > On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > > > would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
> > >
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Microsoft SDK which has "generous terms" (what are they, BTW?)...
> >
> > When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
>
> I said Windows program, not generic.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
> protect people from being sued to begin with.
C'mon David! :-(
"We are not imposing anything on ou
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:02:54 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Just to emphasise this point - *we can't even protect them from
> > being sued in an arbitrary country*.
>
> It is not a matter of protecting users. It is a matter of not
> requiring us
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable mad
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help when someone finally decides to go after them.
You may want to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Dani
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
> > protect people from being sued to b
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
> >legal system.
> Why not?
Do yourself a favour and learn how statutes and agreements differ.
> > That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses
> >a
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> > to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
> > protect people from being s
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
> > > to not install such software if
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> > > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anyt
38 matches
Mail list logo
