Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Here's the poop, in a nutshell: after a few months of back-and-forths,
> we worked out a draft license that the working group felt was compatible
> with the DFSG. CC hopes to apply the changes to the upcoming CC 3.0
> license suite draft, and that version will be available f
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:06:35AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I don't see how those messages give you the impression that this license
> is not GPL-compatible. The license is in fact a BSD license, sans
> advertising clause, and is thus GPL-compatible.
Yes, this is 3 clause BSD variant =
Walter Landry wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating
>>>between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible.
>>
>>I think it is possible. It require
On 12/30/05, Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to reditribute the Oracle Instant
> Client in Debian's non-free archive.
...
This is old, but I didn't see any responses to this. So I'll spell out what
I think is the obvious answer:
Thi
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:44:21 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> This does raise another interesting point: there are laws in some
> jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect
> privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It
> would be problematic if this clau
[Please cc to me and Gilles]
Hi,
digikam developers would like to use Adobes XMP standard and
reference implementation to handle image meta data.
http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
They would like to make sure that the license is okay with debian
before they start using it. If
> You may not modify the Documentation.
Means the docs are non-free.
> 6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION. This Agreement is governed by the statutes
> and laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law
> principles thereof. If any part of this Agreement is found void and
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
> You may not modify the Documentation.
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
it actually fails DFSG#3.
[...]
> 6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION.
[...]
> Any dispute arising out of or
> related to this Agr
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any dispute arising out of or
> > related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
> > Clara County, California, USA.
>
> This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
> debian-legal contributors (including
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
>
> > You may not modify the Documentation.
>
> As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
> it actually fails DFSG#3.
>
> [...]
> > 6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISD
Raul Miller writes:
> On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Any dispute arising out of or
> > > related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
> > > Clara County, California, USA.
> >
> > This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
> > de
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
> > they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
> > else has a presence.
>
> Why do you say that?
You pretty much answ
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
> > live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
> > DFSG#5. Those people can be
Raul Miller writes:
> On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
> > > they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
> > > else has a presence.
> >
> > Why do
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel around
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
> >In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
> >live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
> >DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel around the planet in order
> >to defend themselves i
If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading claims).
The other argument is that even without this ch
> On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Any dispute arising out of or
> > > related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
> > > Clara County, California, USA.
> >
> > This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
> > debian-legal contributo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:08:34AM +0400, olive wrote:
> >If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
> >Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
> >holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
> >confusion (and misle
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when it
> applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
> people.
>
> It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other peop
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Any dispute arising out of or
> > > related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
> > > Clara County, California, USA.
> > This is a choice of venue and
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
olive>
olive> >This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
olive> >debian-legal contributors (including me...).
olive> >
olive> >In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
olive> >live far away from S
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of ven
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
> If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
> declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
> As long as the DFSG is not changed the license remains DFSG-
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn> There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate* venue. If
Glenn> California really is the appropriate venue for the suit, as determined
Glenn> by the law, then that's fine. If the appropriate venue is Massachusetts,
G
25 matches
Mail list logo
