Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Francesco Poli wrote: 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 me

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney wrote: 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 tha

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ITYM "Francesco Poli won't stop crapflooding debian-legal with his > dissenting view about the freeness of CC by-SA 3.0, making it ever harder to > find relevant posts like > and >

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney concluded: > So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can > redistribute on any media, even those that implement access > restrictions. Aha, That means my previous assertion was wrong: > So while the [anti-TPM] method [in CC and GPLv3] is rather different, > t

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

Francesco Poli wrote: > Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0 > licenses. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html > Just saying that they are "in spirit the same as GPL" is *not* a >

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You assert that GPLv3 allows "parallel distribution" (thus a work > with/on DRM as long as it is also available for free"), while CC > does never allow a work on/with DRM. That is a difference indeed. One, yes. This thread has become quite long enough

Re: Using Debian as a base for a LiveCD together with non-free products.

Jenner Fusari wrote: 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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Francesco Poli wrote: Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0 licenses. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html Just saying that they are "in spirit the same as GPL" is *not* a convincing

Re: Licensing of iso-codes

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Tobias Toedter wrote: Would it be possible for non-free programs to use that data (XML files and translations) if iso-codes is licensed under GPL? Or would we need to use the LGPL for this? My first thought is what do you expect the GPL to do for you with this data set

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:12 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote: [...] > Francesco, > [one constructive answer to one of my concerns, at last!] > > So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or > restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the > restriction "you can o

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:12 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote: > > So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or > > restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the > > restriction "you can only buy blank CDs and DVDs if you pay a fee"). > > S

CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

Francesco wrote: > DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about > the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights > granted under this License" ? That refers to collecting societies that have both a legal monopoly, and legal mandate to collect roya

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme

Francesco Poli wrote: > What is not clear to me is: if "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes" > are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs, > DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about > the right to collect royalties "for any exercise b

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme

Freek Dijkstra wrote: > Actually, you could do like the FSF: fight the system by using their own > methods. There is nothing that can stop Debian from registering as a > rights society, and as such could become a society to collect these > non-waivable fees on behalf of the (open-source) software a