right to put under GPL's terms.
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:22:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> No, it says I may only *distribute* it under such a license.
>
> Section 1 says "You may copy and distribute..."
Yes, it does, but some of the requirement
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
> the original work were in the public domain
The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point.
In general, choice-of-law and "you must obey the laws of Kaz
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> volumes
>
> Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just
> arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days old.
>
> If you're really chu
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
>> > I've overlooked? If so, please quote this.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute mod
mmon english).
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Wha? An appropriate copyright notice is along the lines of "Copyright
>> (c) 1984-2004 Richard Stallman," as might plausibly appear on much GNU
>> software. It imposes no
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
> this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
> wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
> software."
Absolutely. I don't see why
e and
>> > you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL
>> > demands (for example, you have the right to give all others GPLed rights
>> > to this work).
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > "This license is governed by California law"
>>
>> > > OK.
>>
>> > > "and both of us
>> > > agree th
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Let's go for emacs and openssl. If there is no distribution of
>> > emacs+openssl, then there is no problem. Are you asserting that this
>> > is the case?
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:07:39PM -040
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have a citation? I don't see how this could possibly work. I
> could see that a tort happens in place X that is decided in a court in
> place Y, but I don't see how you're going to get courts in one place
> to familiarize themselves with the law
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Free/non-free? (Only an academic interest, I did not use this driver
> yet.)
Having checked the licenses on the files in the Tau-PCI distribution,
many of them appear to be free. But the obfuscated files, such as
cpddk.c, have the license: "All R
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
>
> I don't think revision control logs can possibly satify it; it specifically
> says that the modified files mus
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or
> just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used?
> The wording is unclear to us, sorry."
But those are the same thing. Copyright attaches to the
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAI
"Benjamin Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
>> work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
>> be distributed because
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
> # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
> # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
> # inclusion in the work.
This is a GPL-incompatible res
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches
> to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the
> condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing
> the patches could not be consider
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
>> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
>> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to
You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
>> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
>>
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
>> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
>> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
>
> What do you mean? In order to gain t
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 8, 2004, at 14:56, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
>> Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant
>> win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a
>> derivative of neither.
>
> That leads to even wei
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:20:57AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> FOO is and always was a derivative work of MS Windows. It was
>> provably such until Wine added that function; after that, it's much
>&g
Marco Franzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
>> relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
> Java pr
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
>> Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped with Windows, is.
>
> Either it is or isn
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
> license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy, right?
A har
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
>>> license requirements, he should chec
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memo
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
> derivative works from the rights of a collective (antholo
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:35:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >>
>&g
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
> kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
> work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
> would be each and every patch that entered th
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>
> >Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
> >compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
> >aggregation, as th
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
>> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that you
>> > perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some
>> > obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have
>> >
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-06-25 17:00:42 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] what we are usually talking about on debian-legal
>> are the agreements, not the licenses granted in those agreements.
>
> Maybe this is indicative of a general topic drift in this lis
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never
>> > plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an
>> &
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>
> >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that one
> >had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it offers,
> >because it's
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>
> >Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
> >>
> >> >A whole bunch of yo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided you
>> wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have distributed
&g
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My response: I do not accept the license grant. Therefore, I
> have rejected your offer and so I am not bound to do anything
> in return.
So if you say you want to give me your watch, and I say I want it, can
you not accept my desire, and so reje
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive
>> communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the
>> minds?
>
> That's an interesting requirement that is apparently different in
> different countries; in some places, i
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>
> For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC, if it requires a contract to be formed, there needs to be some
> sort of consideration from licensee to licensor in exchange for the
> permissions. Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and
> therefore this test would be a simple illustration
Why not just point him at the smallest possible BSD-style license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list o
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
>> > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
>> > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
>> > it's not free, so I do
Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
> intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
> intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
> in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers
I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
combines with the fees of 6c and 3b to conflict with DFSG #3.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>
>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>> of the softwa
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial
>> developer when I distribute to some third party.
>
> DFSG #1 does not talk about who receives the fee. If the license
> required to pay $1 to the receiver of each copy, this would clear
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ I've been watching the QPL discussion with some interest and, dare I
> say it, hilarity. This just has to be replied to... ]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>>
>>The problem comes from these three clauses:
>>
>> 3b. When modifica
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>QPL just insists that the copyright holder can insist that the
>>modifier/ person who created a dependent work provide sources of _his_
>>work. Even if the new work is only depending on the QPL'ed
>>software. It need not be even a d
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:40:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I think you've left out a couple bits -- the fee of a license under
>> 3b violated DFSG #1, and the requirement for a fee-free license in 6b
>> com
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>>That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>>of the s
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
>>>> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
>>>> permission to distribute.
>>>
>>> And the QPL requirements are not fees either, th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
>>> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
>>> the source code, a written of
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
>>> distribute source alongside them is a fee. It's not nec
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
> license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
> good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
> free.
The patent non-polic
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, "if you modify
>>this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible".
>>It wouldn't fail the desert island test ("as soon as possible" might easily
>>mean "never") but
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that the "dissident test" is just a weird way of saying
>>something like:
>>
>>DFSG 11. Licence Must Not Invade Privacy of Individuals or Groups
>
> Right. That's the sort of conclusion
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
>> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
>> -- the c
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
>>> going to fly with a wider audience.
>>
>>Funny to us possibly, but did anyone po
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>>> difference whatsoever to our users at
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
>>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
>>allowing termination at any time according to the author's m
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
> possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
> being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than the
> GPL's provisions.
The dissident tes
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm wondering if any of the frequent -legal posters would mind helping
> with a review of my proposed Jabberd2 packages. There was some concern
> over the original package and the fact that a GPL'd work was linked
> against OpenSSL. I understand t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
>>> in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
>>
>>You should not need a technical
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
> both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
>
> GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the
> recipient. You claim this is not a fee.
>
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
>> > and would b
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >> But the QPL doesn
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
>>
>> Right now,
Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
> What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and
the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>You should not need a technical wor
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
>>> original
>>> recipient (who I provided the software to) is mak
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
>>> want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
>>> modification falls within this. Distribu
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
That's necessary for the recipient to have Freedom with respect to the
software -- otherwise he can't modify it to suit his purposes.
> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
>>
>> It's that one is to t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The test itself, though, remains clear: Any requirement for sending
>>source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the
>>modified binary---in
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>>> never be possible to tur
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively
>>> guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the
>>> DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR
>>> and you convince
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
>> > technical awk
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (und
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
>> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
>
> Which DFSG point?
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
>> issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
>> modifications under the same
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am th
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am th
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is the developer's promise to obey the license in the first place any less
> of a fee by this definition? The fee is the behavioral constraints of the
> developer as dictated by the licensor. In the case of the GPL, the promise
> includes distributin
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a
> GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on
> the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the
> right to pass on further modifica
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
> Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
>> > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the ag
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that this is bad, but does DFSG 3 forbid this? Perhaps it
> does, but only if you assume some kind of implicit substitution where
> the modifier replaces the author in the "same terms". I don't think
> that's a particularly natural way to
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:13:38PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The developer hasn't promised to obey the license. I distribute
>> software written by others all the time. I'm not sued by them because
>>
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their
>> software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe,
>>
Thanks for pointing out gnuplot. I believe plplot and kmatplot are
free-er alternatives.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the
modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses
when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name
-- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much as the
word "Debian" does. So even
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I
>>> think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much
>>>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Making freedom harder to assert is restricting freedom.
>
> The GPL makes it harder to assert freedom because you need to spend more
> time investigating subtle license interactions.
Easily shown to be false -- if you accept patch clauses as Free, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> > So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
>>> > doesn't apply.
>>>
>>> Let's go through this again:-
>>>
>>>`These items, when distributed, are subject ..'
>>> ^
>>
>>So if I give a copy to m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, "if you modify
this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible".
It wouldn't fail the desert island test ("as soon as possible" might easily
mean "never") but it would f
1 - 100 of 629 matches
Mail list logo
