Thanks for all the feedback!
The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0,
even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize
the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this
discussion: it
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
By what criterion do you decide that something is "indeed
DFSG-free"? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to
know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler.
For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote
What if there's a popular vote that declares that the Earth is flat?
Does the Earth suddenly become flat, because of that?
The DFSG is subject to interpretation and it is not possible to decide
all cases definitively by just reading the terms. Debian has set rules
to decide if a work can or ca
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition based
on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key on
their keyboard by mistake.
As far as I know, FTP masters are human beings and can therefore make
mi
Hi debian.legal,
is it possible to use Debian as the base for a Live CD intended to
present a commercial (non free) software (test and evaluate it in its
demo version)? Is there any legal issue on doing this?
The GPLv2 seems to allow distributing GPLv2-software together with
other_license-sof
Jenner Fusari wrote:
is it possible to use Debian as the base for a Live CD intended to
present a commercial (non free) software (test and evaluate it in its
demo version)? Is there any legal issue on doing this?
There could be; we have no idea.
From the free software side, there should be ve
So while the method is rather different, the end-result is exactly the
same. At least, so it seems to me. So I asl my question again: In this
light, doesn't that make GPLv3 just a free or non-free (in particular
DSFG-free or DSFG-non-free) as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin
Olive wrote:
The persons who are entitled to take a decision (i.e. the ftp masters)
have decided that CC-BY-SA is free. Many people here say that something
is not suitable for main even though it has already been decided
otherwise by the persons entitled to take the decision. They mistake
the
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Olive wrote:
The persons who are entitled to take a decision (i.e. the ftp masters)
have decided that CC-BY-SA is free. Many people here say that
something is not suitable for main even though it has already been
decided otherwise by the persons entitled to take the d
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 03:20:20 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Joseph Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do sounds count as trademarks? If so, this likely is one.
>
> There are audio trademarks, yes, although this may not be one.
>
> However, audio is definitely copyrightable, so eve
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> FWIW, that "uh-oh" sound had been one of those silly things "going around"
> the internet long before ICQ ever existed; ICQ just grabbed it and used
> it[1]. I'm not sure anyone really knows what the source is.
The BBC may have a good case based on their copyrights on
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:36:49 +0200 Olive wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition
> >> based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
> >> As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key
> >> on their keyboard by mistake.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:59:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:50:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > > Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> > > > it's probably non-free, and best not put it in m
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
[...]
> Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
> decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
> vote.
Please note that GR-2006-001 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001)
did not change the D
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:36:49 +0200 Olive wrote:
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition
based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key
on their keyboard by mistake.
As
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:51:31 +0200 Olive wrote:
[...]
> What make sense is what Debian considers free and as long as
> the decision is taken according to rules we can say that Debian
> considers it free.
*As long as the decision is taken according to rules*...
What do you mean?
As long as the d
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, it is my opinion that the DFSG should be clarified, and
> allow CC licensed work in main. But for now, package authors should
> be cautious.
For the record, it's my opinion that the current wording of the
various CC licenses unnecessarily restr
Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Firstoff, please note that *packages* are accepted in main or
> > otherwise rejected. *Packages*, not *licenses*.
>
> OK, but packages are accepted according to their license; when I say
> that Debian accept a license I mean that it a
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:31PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> > Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
> > decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
> > vote.
> Please note that GR-2006-0
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: openproj
> Version : 0.9.4
> Upstream Author : Projity Inc.
> * URL : http://www.openproj.org
> * License
Jeff Licquia ha scritto:
From the free software side, there should be very few problems. Linkage
might be an issue. If the non-free app links to works licensed under
the GNU GPL, there's an exception that allows this *if the two works are
not distributed together*, which might make the app leg
21 matches
Mail list logo
