Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
> computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anythi
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
> src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
> oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
> is no real bootstrapping provide
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
> > of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
> > compile it with GHC.
>
> GHC can be bootstrapped without GHC itself, there is a minimal C
> implementat
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
> > derivative of Windows?
>
> Yes.
There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually
confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the
case of GPL libra
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> # 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.
> What is the impact of the third par
Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I don't really want to defend the MPL, but ...
> | 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
> | [...]
> | (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is
> | granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2)
> |
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Also, could someone explain how this sort of condition would work in
> > practice? Suppose I'm the licensee. The licensor would go to court in
> > Santa Clara County and say what, exactly? I haven't signed anything,
> > so how would the licensor convince t
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
> > > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the
> > > clause
> > > was ruled to be unenforcable).
> >
> > This is circular. A court has to decide from th
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Textbook Example: in Scotland, if you advertise a reward for returning
> your lost cellphone, you are contractually obligated to reward the
> person returning the phone. If you refuse, they can take you to court
> for this reward. (In this case, the phone is
Benjamin Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Anyway... the program itself is GPL, no problems there. However, on the
> same site, they have several zip files that are basically rom databases
> produced by running the program on directories full of ROMs, allowing you to
> match ROM images by their checks
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
> TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
> the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
> found.
>
> My thinking is that we
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
> that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be allowed into main without
us trying to pretend that it's only there fo
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
> the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
> software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
> test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers.
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
> > author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
>
> That's a bogus reason. A typical "you must give the author 1000 $ /
> month" doesn't prohibit you from paying nothin
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
> > players removed from Debian main?
>
> Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
> render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you can make
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> > work; see se
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
> >How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
> >use, modify or distribute the software.
>
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to requir
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
> >be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
> >Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
>
> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for s
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> >The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in
> >the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as
> >the memorable but silly "dissiden
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe the situation in the Dissident test is that the laws of the
> totalitarian government are irrelevant. The Dissident test triggers if,
> when the dissident finally leaves the jurisdiction of the totalitarian
> government, some copyright holder can say
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
> imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance o
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?
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?
>
> 3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived
>works, and must allow
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's interesting. I propose the following license then. Is it free
> in your opinion? It doesn't technically violate any DFSG clauses, but I
> think it's self-evidently non-free, because it takes away fundamental
> freedoms.
>
> Anyone ("you") may u
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first "reproach".
> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
> the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
> particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
> -- not the parts in the library linked in, b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> >> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> >> then you must supply one.
> >As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requiremen
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> > secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
>
> Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
> to use the software in question.
Of cou
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
> knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
> information an important one?
I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but:
- The information in question will b
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
> request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
> want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
> otherwise. For that matter, do you see an
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I
> feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output
of a compiler might contain copyrightab
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm still
> interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of the QPL
> discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly important to
> actually bring to the project; they keep coming up again in
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which
> claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler,
> for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products
> for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarri
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant
unless INRIA have pub
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> | initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> | then you must supply one.
> The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > they are an implicit consequence of violating the license. Likewise,
> > Debian considers licenses non-free if they say "You may only use this
> > software in legal ways" because that discriminates against dissidents
> > where there are repressive laws.
What'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
> suspect a copyright-based license clause would a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
> > permission that they gave you?
>
> Because upstream used one of your modification in a private version of the
> software, without including it in the QPLed version for example ?
Isn't that
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
> >
> > (1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
> > goes against tradition.
>
> Could you define more precisely what is meant by cost of administration ? I
> think i am going
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
> > situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
> > make the software available to the general public.
>
> Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.
According to
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
> > > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
> > > > strongest yet:
> > > >
> > > > (3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
> > > > suffi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
> > licence?
>
> I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
> > If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
> > granted by section 3?
>
> They do not, since they apply to t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
> it.
>
> > be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
> > only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the
> > rest can have any free li
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> since a given software can either be a modification of the original software
> (which can replace it) or link with the original or modified software (and
> thus use it).
One last attempt:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
libra
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
> > library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
> > modification that was made by adding material to L.
>
> Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
> specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works.
>
> ...hmm?
Perhaps DFSG 3 is looking at it from th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In its current form, I think there'd be few people who would accept the
> RPSL as DFSG-free. If you terminated patent grants rather than the
> copyright license, I think there'd be a sizable proportion of developers
> who would accept it as DFSG-free.
See al
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Lastly, if there is a choice of venue clause, can Arthur force Tom to
> appear in France, where he could be arrested for violating French
> hate-speech laws?
I don't think you have to appear in person for a civil case.
However, it has just occurred to
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure how to interpret this; I'm not familiar enough w/ SRP-Z. Is
> this a different algorithm, such that the source would need to be
> significantly modified (such that SRP-Z is essentially a separate thing,
> convered by its own license; converting S
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But standard advice on network security is *not* to advertise specific
> > banners. I don't think much of that advice, but I sure do see a lot
> > of it. Is it free to make this kind of requirement of users of the
> > software, that they ignore good securit
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
>
> Not so great.
>
> > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
>
> I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
I'm not convinced
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
> which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
> distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
> the system calls and implements them
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
> don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody
> which permits me to grant a license like this to the "initial
> developer" -- granting new licenses is someth
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that it's fine to have licenses in other languages; I just think
> that there should always be an authoritative license in English, too.
I don't think that's acceptable as a general rule. The licence is
binding on the licensor, who should not have to b
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The license is binding on the licensee,
Not in the same way, assuming it really is a licence, rather than a
contract.
> who should not have to be bound
> by a text in a language that they don't understand properly.
> (The only solution available to me, in tha
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > version of it?
>
> The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use
> is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going
> to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything
> approaching a free license.
>
> As a comparison, the
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
> license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
> does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
> licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
Does
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license"
> disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
> right?
That's what I would have thought. Does anyone disagree?
(However, I would add something along the lin
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A Free logo, like any other Free image or Free work in general, must be
> usable for any purpose.
It is, provided you modify it sufficiently. You could use it to make
your own trademark, for example.
On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and f
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I acknowledge that all of those classes of law are quite different in
> many ways. Nevertheless, the DFSG does not differentiate among methods
> of restricting Freedom.
That's because they're guidelines, though you seem to want to apply
them legalistically wi
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a particular
> > way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and cannot give
> > permission for all possible uses of Debian software.
>
> We most certainly can and should.
We can't give permission
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Names of people are (curiously) less protected. It's probably
> defendable to use players' names in a game, but (at least in the
> US) it would likely attract annoying lawyers, too. I wouldn't
> recommend it. But then, I morally feel celebrities deserve the
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
> transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
> non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
> we don't have a Free license, such as the sourc
Anthony Towns :
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they ha
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
> to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The
> Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
> copyright holder of both works, can distribute
Daniel Isacc Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
> achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
> problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
> under the GPL .
http://www.php
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the "no warranty" clause and
> how to make it legally binding.
I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
"legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
might be better off if
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To accuse someone of accusing someone of dishonesty is pretty serious,
> too.
He was probably in a hurry and misunderstood. A polite correction
would do. There's no need to start accusing RMS of accusing people of
accusing him of dishonesty, not that I want to accus
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> > signed it.
>
> And what does that mean? May I download Emacs, not accept the GPL, use
> it, run into problems with my business because of using it and then sue
> the FSF?
Of course. You
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The whole point of my hypothetical example is that I don't accept the
> license and use the software nevertheless.
> How could the GPL then be of any help?
People don't have to accept the GPL unless they are redistributing. I
would guess that the GPL helps beca
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If so, I can say with certainty that the FSF claims that the GPL is not
> a contract. I attended their recent seminar on the GPL at Stanford Law
> School (August '03 See http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html ) and
> heard presentations from Exec. Director Bra
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But to avoid any delicate issue in the future, if I were you, if would
> ask him to confirm with a gpg signed email the license change (just an
> email is something easy to fake).
Getting him to sign the e-mail with his own key won't help much in the
case of him
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
> > > hardly be a valid proof of anything.
> >
> > In some countries like in France it's truly accepted in court like a
> > valid proof, you just have to follow some rules. I don't
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As far as know, almost anything is acceptable in a UK court as valid
> > proof, apart from a few stupid exceptions, such as "hearsay".
> >
> Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient
> authority to be bound by the contents o
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Electronic Communications Act 2000
>
> 7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
>
> (a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically
> associated with a particular electronic communication or
> particular electronic data
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
> than BSD in that respect.)
Then use the GPL, version 2 only.
If you use the GPL version 2 or later then f
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, it makes thing less clear, in fact.
>
> - If everything that is on a Debian CD is software, it may
> means that any text that can be included (for instance the
> Bible) is software for Debian.
>
> - But it may also means
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
> first clause of the
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
> political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
> distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
> compliant?
No. I think it's much easier for Debian to make an ex
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
> > under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
> > "political/philosophical/historical texts".
>
> The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> political/p
To people who are seriously interested in this long-running discussion
on the meaning of "software", can I recommend George Lakoff's book
"Women, Fire and Dangerous Things", which explains how word meanings
in human language are based on "prototypes" rather than logical
categories? You might also w
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
> to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
Well in that case you can rest assured that they will be removed from
Debian together with the documentation to which they are attached!
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
> for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
>
> http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
>
> If you modified an application which implements PDF so tha
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
> > the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
> > the past).
>
> So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case?
It's not ignoring the DFSG; it's interpre
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is why the GFDL does not require "complete corresponding source
> code" for a published manual. It's easier to change the manual if you
> have this, but no disaster if you don't: you just have to write your
> own mark-up, which is pretty straightforwar
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> > part of the streaming media on the Internet).
>
> If we don't want to include this support, this is n
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
> anonymous copyright holder.
So, use a pseudonym. This is only a problem if you live in a country
where it is illegal to use a pseudonym and you are very law-abiding
dissident and cannot bri
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > b. If modifications to the SE are released under this
> > > license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the
> > > copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your
> > > modification in future versions of the SE provide
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you feel that the GPL needs clarification for the term 'object code', add
> a specific notice stating what forms you consider to be object code (not
> source code) in your interpretation.
But make sure this "clarification" functions as an additional pr
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(Big long quote because a few days have passed:)
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:05:56AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theor
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
> > notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
> > remove the CD, and resell it. See the "first sale" doctrine.
>
> But the reseller would be distributing a modified GPL
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
> >something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
> >with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind
> >of paradox here ...
>
> Given:
>
Jacob Emcken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But before it can be packaged it has to be legal :)
> I have tried to read the license but im not sure if it is legal to
> package. Well it won't fit into main... but perhapes contrib or non-free?
I'm not a Debian developer, but it looks to me that to distribu
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
> > ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
> > make,
> > ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> > ;;;th
Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm looking for some advice concerning the wording of the following
> license. The goal is to keep this license as short as possible while
> still making it a copyleft license upgradable to any of the other
> licenses.
The idea sounds all right, but I find i
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >1. You have the right to copy, modify, and/or distribute the work.
>
> > I don't know what "and/or" means, but I find it hard to imagine a
> > definition of "and/or" which would make this sentence mean that I have
> > clear and explicit permission to
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as po
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
> "free" (eg. "similar in spirit") to my own software, so I'm not
> comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
> will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Exactly my point. What would the equivalent of dynamic linking be? A
> book that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
> and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
Wasn't there a case with a book containing questions
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
