* Dmitry Smirnov:
> I'm seeking second opinion regarding mutation of the Expat license that can
> be found in [1]. In particular, author added the following clause:
>
> The Software shall not be used nor made available to TESTTailor or any
> individual or organization related or operated
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:10:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
> The restriction you cited violates DFSG §5 (“No Discrimination Against
> Persons or Groups”).
Well yes, but then how GPL termination clause is not a violation?
Consider hypothetical situation when a known offender of the license have it
Walter Landry writes:
> Ole Streicher wrote:
>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
>> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>
> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the
> preferred form of modification for the people making modifications.
>
Ben Finney writes:
> Ole Streicher writes:
>> However, it contains one line
>> /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...]
>> which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted.
>
> I would say the test of whether a file is source is whether it can be
> described as “the prefe
Charles Plessy writes:
> Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not
> matter anymore.
Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is
actual (and, BTW, also not whether it is automatically generated) but
what "is preferred" (holy passive)
> Charles Plessy writes:
> >
> > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not
> > matter anymore.
Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>
> Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is
> actual (and, BTW, als
On 10/13/15 08:50, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:10:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The restriction you cited violates DFSG §5 (“No Discrimination Against
>> Persons or Groups”).
>
> Well yes, but then how GPL termination clause is not a violation?
Because it is a clause expla
This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
sent there :)
Cheers,
Paul
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm seeking second opinion regarding mutation of the Expat license that can
> be found in [1]. In particular, author a
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:31:03 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
> sent there :)
Understood, thanks. But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to
blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and
It can not.
Thanks,
Paul
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:31:03 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
> > sent there :)
>
> Understood, thanks. But my question really is whet
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 12:50:55 MJ Ray wrote:
> On 10/13/15 08:50, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > Listing known offenders in addition to the text of the license wouldn't
> > be violation of DFSG §5, right?
>
> Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new
> valid licence?
I
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to
> blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and
> how...
The goal of excluding specific people, or groups of people, is not
compatible with software freedom. It's also not compatible with the
Ole Streicher wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>> Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
>>> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>>
>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the
>> preferred form of modification for the
El 13/10/15 21:53, Ben Finney escribió:
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to
blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and
how...
The goal of excluding specific people, or groups of people, is not
compatible with software freed
> IMHO it is a DFSG-compatible license because added clause is not a
> restriction for field of endeavour but a termination clause similar to GPL
> ones except that is is explicitly added to the license in order to blacklist
> a known offender.
Are you sure that Adarsh Mehta is a known offender
15 matches
Mail list logo
