2008/3/6, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In my opinion, the decision boils down to:
>
> o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to
> keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be "similar
> in spirit to the present version"[2][3], then you may choo
2008/3/5, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rather, it would be "comunicación pública" instead of "distribución".
>
> Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the
> various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding.
> National laws that red
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote about the bloody lunatic test:
> > In that case and if the lunatic is truthful, no software under the GPL is
> > free
> > for 'you'. However, that's the fault of the lunatic and not the software or
> > its licence. IMO th
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I could equally use that reasoning for the mandatory redistribution case.
> > No software under that license is free for you, but that's the fault of the
> > situation and not the license. The bug
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It's pretty similar to the bloody lunatic test; the license says you
> > can't distribute unless you follow some condition (distribute source/send
> > changes off the island), but an external force having nothing to do with the
> > author of the software forces
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese
> dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who
> wears an uniform) -- he breaks unrelated laws, yet does not breach the
> license in any way.
A license
Thanks for your insight into Spanish law Miry & Steve. I did wonder what was
wrong with the term "distribution" when v3 was written. I don't think this
will put me off the GPL v2 though.
> o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to
> keep the promise that future versions
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > One can spot whether it's the fault of the licence in 99% of problems
> > by asking whether a change to the licence could remove the problem.
> >
> > A change to the licence could allow desert island hacking.
> > No ch
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> source, the license demanding you do so is fine.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > No, that isn't true. A change to the license which says you don't need to
> > include source would prevent the bloody murderer from being a problem,
> > just like a change saying you don't need to send changes off the island
> > would prevent the island from b
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > consider this: if the bloody murderer will kill you if you reveal
> > your identity (dissident test) the license demanding you do so is
> > nonfree. But if the bloody murderer will kill you if you distribute
> > source, the license demanding you do so is fi
11 matches
Mail list logo
