Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

>On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: What the? andrew

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:24:08PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP software, freely available from

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On 10562 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. > No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > acknowledgment: > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND " > > is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. > > Agreed; this license is still not suitable for software that doesn't come > from the PHP Gro

Attachments not Delivered by VisNetic MailScan!

The attachment(s) that you sent with the following mail was deleted by VisNetic MailScan (not delivered to the recipient) == The Mail came from: debian-legal@lists.debian.org The Mail recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject of the Mail

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote: > My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here. Dropping down, down, down... :-( > Revising history is never a good sign. Agreed fully. _1984_ by George Orwell comes to mind (where the Minitrue continuously rewrites history). --

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> >> Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. > > No, it isn't. The current point 6 is: > > 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following > > acknowledgment: > > "This product includes PHP software, freely available from > > ". > >

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

> > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License > > is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This > > claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter > > at debian-legal. > > So lets look at that license, not only for "allow

Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:20:21 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: > > > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP > > > License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group > > > software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic > > > discussion on the matter at debia

Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft

* Nathanael Nerode: >> I think this is overly broad. What about the following? >> >> "You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this >> License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according >> to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limite

Re: Affero General Public License

> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The bigger problem is that by arguing for this type of new law, we are > > arguing for an expansion of existing copyright law. I'm sure that MS > > and many other ASPs who want to bring copyright into the interactions > > between software

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

Hello Francesco Poli, hello list, I should clarify things here... You wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:25:03 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote: My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here. Dropping down, down, down... :-( Don't think of all people in the FSF. Thanks. Revising history is n

Re: Affero General Public License

> > How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web > > application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two? > > I think that's an unnatural distinction. Both web users and arcade > players are equally "users"; there are examples in both cases where > providing

legal residence for corporations

Glenn Maynard wrote: >(I'm not sure, however, if "resides" is a legally meaningful term, when >the defendant isn't an individual.) Good question. In the US, if I remember correctly, clauses refering to the "residence" of corporations generally are treated as referring either to the state where t

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

Hey Gymnasist, be advised that if Wallace http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf won't succeed in US, I'll invite him to Germany. http://www.allenovery.com/asp/pdf/gercomplaw.pdf -- Rules on distribution Basics Vertical relationships between market participants operating

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote: > So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere. Admitting an error (or a misunderstanding, a misspeaking, or a good old brain fart) is something people can respect; retroactive edits are not. -- Glenn

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

Hello. Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote: So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere. Admitting an error (or a misunderstanding, a misspeaking, or a good old brain fart) is something people can respect; Hm?

Re: Affero General Public License

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways > for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but > maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does > that. Maybe we have a di

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:26:17PM +0100, Sebastian Wieseler wrote: > >>So you should respect me and don't post the caches of my sites anywhere. > MY blog and I can post what I want to post. I don't care about your opinion. Very well, but "respect me" and "I don't care what you think" seem at od

Re: Affero General Public License

Glenn Maynard wrote: > A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical > problems is arcade machines. It's clearly "public performance", and players > in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly. > > We include sources to GPL stuff on the m

Re: Affero General Public License

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at > up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily > be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices. I've generally been of the o

Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was > looking at my project registration wrote to me: I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC): Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled Thu

Re: Affero General Public License

"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also >> "bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and >> [...] users". > > No. They provide a narrowly defined restriction on modification -- > something uncontro

Re: legal residence for corporations

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard wrote: >>(I'm not sure, however, if "resides" is a legally meaningful term, when >>the defendant isn't an individual.) > Good question. > > In the US, if I remember correctly, clauses refering to the > "residence" of corporations general