following item only if it is true.
[ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
=== CUT HERE ===
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
s been made: that without invariant text
there's no way to defend against mis-attribution. But that's
demonstrably false -- and it's been demonstrated.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems!
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
>>> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy
of a GPL work.
> As is often said, law is not like programming; I have no algorithm
> that can tell me which of the above legal outcomes actually
> corresponds to the state of law in any given jurisdiction.
True. But my understanding is that traditionally d-l has erred on the
side of ca
order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those
questions must be "Yes". MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes
answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if
the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG
at all.
--
d about that:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html
Unfortunately, the statement in the DWN is third or fourth hand
information (unless it was the DWN folks which where approached...?),
and consequently it's very hard to know precisely what was said.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I think the "discussion" on d-l will end only
>> when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will
>>
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> You're not the only one to have this misconception, so I want to
>> emphasize this point.
>>
>> The only way you can write your own text based on the old o
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
>>confused (which, as always, i
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
>>> contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation
may or may not
be free, depending on their license) and works under the GFDL is
fundamentally flawed.
I thought I could keep from getting sucked into this Serves me
right, I guess.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
information
stream (i.e., modification of the software).
People are perfectly free to mark up (highlight, underline, etc.)
books they own. Though if they try it on one of mine, I may get a
little pissy. ;)
(IANAL, but if I'm wrong anywhere in the above, I'm sure I'll be
corrected
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
>> But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>> code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>> GPL. Technically the Sun RPC lic
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>>code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>>GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applie
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in
>> the GFDL?
>
> Yes I do.
> I can rewrite
ify at all. You may
be interested in #3, though, which this definitely *would* run afoul
of.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
o problem.
Recall that "license" once referred literally to permission. The
phrase "a license" was a sort of neologism referring to a precise
delineation of the permission for legal purposes.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
GFDL? In addition to pointing out possible errors on our
part it might help to provide a more concrete grounding for our
discussion.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ould have to read while maintaining transparency.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deleted]
*sigh*
Fedor, mail me off-list if you really have something to say and want
me to see it. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and interpret it
as a genuine desire to communicate. Otherwise,
*plonk*
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL P
ssage to him with an
explanation of what "substantive" and "technical" (or "functional"
which he's used in much the same way elsewhere) mean for him, but
that's looking less and less likely. I'm still hoping that some sort
of dialogue is possible with the FSF, but I don't know what
debian-legal can do to encourage that at this point.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
the lack of info from the FSF on the
subject) that the only real deal-breaker in the GFDL is the invariant
sections bit. I think the rest (i.e., the DRM restrictions and even
the unwieldy opaque/clear distinction) could be worked out.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ssues we should include? Am I off-base in thinking this stuff is
pretty established on debian-legal?
The order is not accidental -- I've intentionally started with what I
suspect will be the easiest stuff to resolve.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> B. Transparent and Opaque copies
>>
>> Under certain circumstances the document may not have a transparent
>> version (for example, after being modified with a prop
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> But I'm not restricting someone's exercise of their rights when I
>> give them GPL works on DRM media and, at the same time, give them
>>
make substantial modifications using a word
processor like lyx or OpenOffice (or ms-word, for that matter) that
doesn't have a human-readable save format, there will not be a
transparent version of the new document.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ke. Certainly it didn't seem that anyone disagreed with it.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
, we've been over that ground.
Yet if you're claiming that the answer to the second question is
'yes', I'm not clear how your arguments support that position.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them
>> anyway, simply because we don't have them in a free form?
>
> Hi. I think my first
ue that a
debian package necessarily contains more than just the work itself,
and so qualifies.
That said, I agree that the consensus is that it's not a problem.
(Not a DD either -- nor likely to become one soon with twins on the
way!)
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
e modules.
If Måns means the first of these, my understanding is that that would be
considerably less significant than the latter.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ct, things like whether there's a well-defined interface are generally
only relevant because they suggest that the author of the code
*intended* the work to be separate from the plugins.
But like most folks here, IANAL, so YMMV.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible
>> work, we have two choices:
>
>> - Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and t
clear that there's no way to meet it. Since you
can't, you can't distribute.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you want a simply answer, the answer is: "No (insert disclaimers
>> here)" as others have pointed out.
>
> As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's dist
s not likely to change (via legislation) anytime
soon. Or thats MHO, anyway.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
h all other
plugins for the same parent code, but there is a grey area. Unless
you're ready to consult a lawyer you should probably steer well clear of
that grey area. Perl, I think, isn't really in that grey area (unless
the same perl code uses both libs).
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAI
y can't distribute AIE+INVERT+STENOG on the same CD labeled
"A complete solution to your inverted stegonography needs!" And when
they distribute AIE+INVERT they're required by the license on INVERT to
distribute the source of AIE.
But I'm just nitpicking now; I also agr
out whether or not he actually paired it is to devolve
into philosophical hair splitting.
If I'm a radical artist and fire a cannon from miles away to land on a
sculpture, is the resulting "art" not a derivative of the original
sculpture because I wasn't there when it hit? How a
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 16, 2003, at 11:28, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> If I understand him, he's saying that the author of the plugin is
>> doing the work of pairing his code with the host (even if, in fact,
>> it will be paired ma
g work that the compilation author can
claim copyright on, because if there is it's already covered as a
derived work.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the clause about compilations
was added as a way to *limit* what can be covered under copyright.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
;d want to make sure that you're not adding the exception
to code you don't have complete copyright over, but looking at the bug
report it doesn't look like that's the case here.
(small world)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.ht
have a more solid case before i go to upstream
> about this.
If you want an argument to present to upstream you might try contacting
the FSF for a position on the subject.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
answer questions about GPL
compatibility, and I'm sure they can explain their reasoning much more
authoritatively than we can. They're the experts on GPL compatibility,
not us. If you send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and politely explain the
situation I'm sure they'd be willing to h
it to the for-proprietary
version. If they chose this model they'd have to get permission for
this from contributors.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
debate,
and it worked well in the end. This can probably be done on an
as-needed, volunteer basis, though.
And as for the last case, I personally wouldn't want to touch it with a
10' pole. It's hard enough talking to people about licensing issues
without first having to interest someone w
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, he didn't actually write any of the quoted text...
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> - Someone brings license to d
ith an
exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree
that such a license could be DFSG free?
It seems to me that you have to give up one of the above three
requirements. So in order to let folks distribute hardcopy versions
without an accompanying "source" version you have to go with a more
permissive license (e.g., BSD) or less permissive (i.e., not DFSG free).
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they
>> use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
>> "prefe
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer
>> readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be
>> wo
using the GPL with an additional
exception to the source distribution requirement for small-scale or
non-commercial distribution. As always, it's best if the exception can
be dropped at the choice of the recipient, so as to maintain GPL
compatibility.
--- End debian-legal summary ---
(Not cc&
erally but not necessarily on modification) are
meaningful or not. The idea is that you imagine a particular scenario,
and try to decide if the individual in the scenario can freely use the
software. Take a look at section 8 of:
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
--
Jeremy Hankins <[E
nsors. But that must take second place to our obligation to make
sure that our users aren't surprised by un-free clauses in licenses.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
>> to say on the subject:
>
> Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd li
prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or derivative of
the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior
permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
copy.
ges in
> format or typographical corrections.
>
> To accomplish this, add the phrase `Distribution of substantively modified
> versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the
> copyright holder.' to the license reference or copy.
>
> B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in whole or in
> part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited
> unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
>
> To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or derivative of
> the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior
> permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
> copy.
>
>
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
test came into being? IIRC, the tentacles of evil test was invented
without much of a context.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
>>restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
>>number is not necessary.
>
> I know you gave some
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> This is a serious question: how does "(DFSG 3)" tacked on to the end
>> of a sentence help to explain the issue?
>
> In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
&g
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
>> restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
>> license restricts modifying. The summary
hard. Besides, Batist's
point about professionalism and appearing thorough is well taken, though
it offends the idealist in me. I guess I need to work on my cynicism. ;)
So unless there are others who feel as I do, I'll go ahead and include
the DFSG section in the summary when I post i
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
>
> Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
> does not contain universal tur
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
>> and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
>> "modification&q
istribution of the work or derivative of
the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior
permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
copy.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
uded.
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
>> It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
>> provides some, but not all,
to be a full analysis, just a
summary.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> + - The person who makes any modifications must be identified.
>> + According to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable
>> + restriction on modifica
y to the license, it can't
> insert restrictions on its trademarks into the license. (The
> preceding paragraph, however, still ought to be rewritten to say what
> it's supposed to mean.)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Taken literally, the
licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark
(via copyright) for them.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> | Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on
> | the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It
> Well, if you wrote the majority of the
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I don't know, I think that may be exactly what they wanted. After
>> all, the license is all about maintaining "attribution" -- i.e.,
>> ensuring that folks who see derivat
hen that can probably be resolved, but I do think it merits
explicit clarification by CC.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not clear what "the extent practicable" means here, but it
> > sounds like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from
> > the work if the autho
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> In my personal opinion, the "moral rights" idea is very disturbing.
>> I know it has its defenders, ...
>
> The issue is not whether it's right or
or
written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance
with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be
published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to
time.
Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons
ommons without the prior
written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance
with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be
published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to
time.
Creative Commons may be contacted at h
Licensor promises not to interfere with or be responsible for such
uses by You.
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified without
the express w
other parties, and makes no guarantees, expressed or
> * implied,
> * about its quality, reliability, or any other characteristic.
> *
> * BETA VERSION INCOMPLETE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE
> * see http://math.nist.gov/tnt for latest updates.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ther important part of the discussion.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
responsible for such
uses by You.
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified without
the express written permission of its copyright owner.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
ike code from the work.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
>> the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
>> restrictions is #6
uot; files, a BSD-style license may make sense, if only for
simplicity's sake. If you do wish to go with the GPL it's probably a
good idea to include an exception for resulting works other than
SoundFont files if you go with the GPL, but it could be tricky to nail
down exactly what you
ttaches to all the other
freedoms the license grants, it is also a restriction on all those
freedoms? In which case DFSG #6 is completely redundant.
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
--
Jeremy Ha
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
>> interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
>
> My considered opinion is
otherwise restricted or conditioned by this License or by law, and
Licensor promises not to interfere with or be responsible for such
uses by You.
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license w
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
> Hankins. You can find the
paragraph, we disagree on fundamental
principles. If, however, you agree there (though perhaps not with the
rest) please explain where you think the disagreement shows up, because
we may be able to make sense of things.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 53
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
>> which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
>> disagreement about whether or not it is appropri
k it would be hard to come up with one. I think the reason
there isn't one is that there's little reason for such a license. If
you want to give extra permissions, just use the LGPL. Why is it
important for your works to be GPL-incompatible?
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified without
the express written permission of its copyright owner.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
le think that, we don't they express their opinion about it on
> the relevant mailinglist, namely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is probably a good idea. But I don't know that it would resolve
the DFSG issues with the license, as there are other non-free provisions
that I suspect CC would be
tend your
license to work exactly as it appears to, and restrict users' freedom.
If this is your goal (or perhaps some other variant on item 3 above)
I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing folks on d-l
that your license is Free.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
both display such a blurb, when combined, need only display one
such blurb, rather than the combination of two different blurbs.
Personally, I consider this to be about the outside limit wrt freedom.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
one containing no credits but the copyright notice) and others are
> non-free.
Wouldn't such a work still be non-free? At the least, it definitely
goes much farther than the analogous clause in the GPL. You can't
include code (even optionally executed code) to suppress it, for
example.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
s a lot of
controversy, it's probably worth explicitly eliminating via a GR that
modifies the DFSG. But it's important that we not throw up our hands
and say "Ahh! Corner case!" whenever we find one, because we'd be
making GR's all the time. Especially given all the nit
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In other words, some works under this license are free (for example,
>>> one containing no credits but
ies can be distributed in classroom environments
and the like, where source distribution might be a significant
inconvenience.
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
