Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 00:33:53 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Free software licences should not contaminate other software, remember? I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination mechanism

Re: IBM Public License (again)

Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no patent licence for no known relevant patents. On 2004-05-14 02:12:12 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Consider what we would say if we were ex

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 03:28:02 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So you prefer that the license, like most earlier Free Software licenses, say nothing at all about patents in order to remain free, while IBM retains the freedom to sue you for infringing their patents *whether or not* you su

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other software. That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical characteristic o

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 10:58:00 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, you can't base that claim on the assertion that the license is non-free. "Contaminating other software" would make the license non-free, but the converse is not necessarily true. Does this post stating truisms mean a

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On 2004-05-14 11:03:41 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think that accepting non-free patent licenses is a useful way to defend free software. Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for free software? The wording is a little vague: a "patent applic

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-05-31 21:15:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The second paragraph is very questionable, even if the terms being "agreed to" are free. If the only way you can obtain it is by making a copy yourself, it is a little hostile but applicable, I guess. Surely it's not part

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-01 11:35:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're saying that because it doesn't say "retains _exclusive_ copyright", it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non OpenVision) portions of the work? [...] Not exactly (else I would have written t

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions, not that they're stealing your derivative works. That would require a statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though. As you note,

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order. Why? What form should such a

Re: Which license for a documentation?

On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] I just want to know if there is a list of common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG free. I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences would work for any so

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from the author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.) This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing to do this

Re: Which license for a documentation?

On 2004-06-05 09:49:38 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of > the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about? No, they require specific advertising as a condition of permission. A simple disjunct polite request for

Re: Which license for a documentation?

On 2004-06-05 06:49:19 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this license is actually legally nearly equivalent to giving the work to the public domain. I believe that is the intention. For some reason, I can find very little information on public domain grants in Englan

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular piece of No-one is ignoring the DFSG, so I don't know why you mentioned that. softwa

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-06 23:37:16 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No reason. But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question says. It is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways. One of which is OK, and another which is very not-OK. I do not agree that "OpenVi

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-06 19:19:07 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying [crap] As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to "snap". If you infer that from

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found potentially questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the list. Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you know?

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-07 00:44:25 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US copyright law says that the clause should only mean "we keep our copyrights" (which is a NOP), An interpretation of the clause with respect to most forms o

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-07 12:53:37 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: He is not the only person who thinks the license is ambiguous. Sure, but the stated reasons about assuming copyright seem to be either misreading the licence or misunderstanding copyright. Nor is he the only person who t

Re: Which license for a documentation?

On 2004-06-08 08:14:13 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] However, someone did suggest that > such a request would make the program non-free. [...] Do you mean Josh Triplett? He accepted Lewis Jardine's correction. Why won't you? > I understand that it could be > an inconven

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is. Creative Commons revised their suite of licenses this year (from 1.0 to 2.0), and this list was asked to provide comment: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require Attribution would also fall under this analysis. Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include

Re: license change for POSIX manpages

On 2004-06-09 00:32:11 +0100 Andre Lehovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Please cc: me on replies) [...] I've attached the full text of the new license. Don't do that. I've inlined it. The other sentence that caught my eye is "This notice shall appear on any product containing this materi

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-09 00:12:02 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "MR" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please don't SuperCite outgoing email. It is difficult to follow. [...] I'm now subscribed to debian-legal and I'll try to keep the lines of

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-09 01:56:18 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 3) As for the trademark clause, I agree that the trademark requirement is burdensome. This isn't supposed to be an actual part of the license, according to the source code for the web page; [...] I missed that. I'm no

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-09 09:17:45 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just don't think the second paragraph in the trademark box is binding in any way. After all, Creative Commons (quite wisely) states that it is not a party to the license. For what reason, then, should either of the parties

Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?

On 2004-06-09 19:08:06 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation. First, Mozilla is certainly intended to be "Open Source", which is essentially the same as what Debian means by "free": The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* b

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

On 2004-06-11 22:48:23 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally *preferable* to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because otherwise one needs to be prepared to face suits in all kinds of places. Are any others than

Re: DBD::InterBase licence

On 2004-06-15 14:23:06 +0100 Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file, with the exception that it cannot be placed on a CD-ROM or similar media for commerc

Re: dpANSI

On 2004-06-21 23:25:29 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greetings, and thanks! All I've found is what is in the Review-Notes.text files in the various subdirectories. [...] It is highly likely that this material was intended to be public domain, but possibly that no such statemen

Re: dpANSI

On 2004-06-22 16:56:33 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am personally prepared to rely upon the Common Lisp community understanding that they are public domain documents. [...] It would be nice for tho

Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

Dear debian-legal subscribers, Certain developers and others are promoting the idea that debian-legal has declared the Mozilla Public Licence, which I don't think we have, but sadly the thread has died out. I think that the large number of responses to the "draft summary" shows that there is no

Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages, not licenses. I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly helpful in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar terms a

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described as non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced: http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg00410.html OK, I missed that. The SGI F S L B clause seems

patent aspects, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

ugh. On 2004-06-23 20:11:51 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,: If there are no active patents covering the software, Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively enforced or not. I did no

US venue clause, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-24 01:23:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] it seems they would wait for the verdict from the defendant's location, as usual. Is that true? Yuck. Kinda want to ask a lawyer about that so

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-24 10:40:01 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway, IMHO, summaries of /license/ analyses are still useful. Oh, I agree, but I think we need to make a few changes to how they're being done, now we've seen them in action for a while. There seem to be two types of

Re: RFC: moving from BSD to GPL

On 2004-06-24 11:27:15 +0100 Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to GPL? Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a few old contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

On 2004-06-24 23:42:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: First, the GPL states explicitly [...] It does not say that. Your first premise begs the question of whether this is a contract. This argument is fallacious. [...] Does any

Re: Apple's APSL 2.0

On 2004-06-25 10:32:01 +0100 Ryan Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines? This question doesn't really make sense as phrased, IMO. "We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled

Re: cc65 licensing

Dear subset of debian-legal contributors, Please try to be a bit more constructive when working with upstream developers. The debian developer reference and manuals generally encourage *co-ordination* with upstream. Nothing that gets this response: On 2004-06-25 16:07:40 +0100 Ullrich von Ba

Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free

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 list?

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

Interesting reply, but it seems to have missed my main point. On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split into two `variants' This part is correct. in your opinion, every license should be summarized by one do

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-06-27 11:50:21 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If there is a choice of venue clause (and it's considered valid, which it likely would be), it's likely that it would require a US defendant to go to Santa Clara to avoid summary judgement. Yes, it seems I got it total

Re: Licening ibwebadmin and JSRS

On 2004-06-28 23:39:57 +0100 Remco Seesink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: however they see fit. You may not copyright it yourself or change the rules I have ^ set on how it can be used. [...] It appears to deny me the right to assert copyright i

Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...

On 2004-06-29 22:21:16 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The summariser must implement a comand-line switch (--license or --package) and generate a different type of output depending on how he/she was invoked. [...] Now, it's clear (even to me! ;-) and it sounds like a good propo

Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])

On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would otherwise be legal is non-free by definition. I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: "If a contract-based license restrict

Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test

On 2004-07-01 03:16:10 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] You might find the last two weeks of MPL & Contract discussion useful. ...or not. I'm afraid I don't particularly want to learn huge detail about foreign law systems right now, as I have enough trouble trying

Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness

On 2004-07-01 08:12:56 +0100 Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the # property of Best Practical Sol

Re: definitions of free

On 2004-07-02 22:28:54 +0100 Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Question: what would it take to provide to the user the option to choose "FSF Free" as well as "DFSG Free" (and perhaps "OSI") as the set of packages they wish to install? Add to apt and friends some way to categorise pac

Re: GUADEC report

I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone, asking for cc if you need it. On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROT

Re: Creative Commons license draft summary

On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free At least in this context, we should say instead that software released under it alone will not be free software. It usually doesn't make sense to say a lic

Re: CeCILL license : Free Software License for french research

On 2004-07-07 00:19:57 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted: FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL First off, I was told again today that French has no direct equivalent word for "software". "Logiciel" only means "program". I've no idea what other words don't translate. Basical

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-06 20:21:39 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] things like the desert island test are excessive. Excessive in what way? Yes, it's an extra concept, but it's usually easier to explain than "does not follow DFSG 1, 3, 5, 6 and/or 7, for a significant number of d

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test

On 2004-07-07 11:04:33 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Dictator Test: [...] If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP. Please connect this to specific DFSG if possible. Of course, the FAQ notes that not everything failing a common test is necessarily not free, s

Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

On 2004-07-07 12:42:22 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant >> person. >> More news later, hopefully. [...] > Has there b

Re: Bug#256332: Clarification of redistribution

On 2004-07-09 10:53:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Brian M. Carlson: [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution license. The current version 2.0 of the Attribution Share-Alike license does not

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them into account a bit. I've a few comments... On 2004-07-09 22:59:18 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the public to be provided to the original

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test

On 2004-07-10 00:24:46 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Er, well, whether and how it fails a clause of the DFSG depends [...] I would expect most failures of the Dictator Test to violate DFSG 1. Does that help any? Yes, thanks. I think it's worth including that in the FAQ s

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-10 00:47:24 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "On request" doesn't seem to create any problems for the dissident test. For the request to be made, the dissident must already be known. Nothing says it should be an individual request, or time-limited, or anything. I'm not

Re: GUADEC report

To summarise: yes, tell us where debian-legal goes wrong, but don't be a sniper. On 2004-07-10 08:07:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

omeone who is drafting a summary. Thread starts at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html MJ Ray wrote: "non-free by some." Or maybe many. At least I hope for a Smart Person explaining why we're wrong on these, as they are in a couple of painful places and I ha

Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]

On 2004-07-10 23:13:50 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMHO, Debian logos should be DFSG-free. Their appropriate use should be enforced via trademark laws, not copyright ones, if this is possible. Great. Please review http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-20

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-11 10:59:22 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,: Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the > requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on > request. [...]

Re: CeCILL license : Free Software License for french research

On 2004-07-11 15:54:05 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This looks like a weak definition of source code: what is *required* so as to modify a program written in C? I agree, this looks like a lawyerbomb. Moreover, I think it should say explicitly "the GNU General Public Lice

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 04:32:30 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license this late in the sarge release process is no small matter. It probably doesn't matter too much. debian-legal and [EMAIL PROTECTED] both seem not to move pa

Email OLR management, was: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-12 05:07:03 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Once again, you're spamming the list, sending dozens of messages without actually reading threads so you don't waste everyone's time with repetition. This is a very bad habit; please break it. I don't remember "must

Re: CC-based proposal (was FDL: no news?)

On 2004-07-12 08:18:21 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why, particularly, should he deviate from the fine example set by Craig Sanders and other supporters of Proposal D? Craig Sanders himself voted Further Discussion as second preference and ignored all other outcomes, de

Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness

On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass. I think restrospectively justifying a "Holier than Stallman" tag with such a decision is un

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test

On 2004-07-12 09:00:02 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Data point: I can't scare up the reference at the moment, but The XFree Project, Inc., asserted that the warranty disclaimer was a "condition" of the MIT/X11 license. If a condition, let's try trimming to just relevant

Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license

On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would appreciate commentary and analysis. I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for usage more broadly. [...] Confusing but probably consistent. I wouldn't be happy recommending thi

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test

On 2004-07-12 09:18:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS | LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY SUBJECT SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT | UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER. (SGI's GLX license.) Does such a wording really make diff

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-12 10:48:57 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I mentioned on IRC, we shipped QT in main under the QPL before the GPL was added. I don't think the above is a terribly convincing argument. [...] Given the apparent lack of comment either way, it seems null as data.

Proposal: changes to summary guidelines

Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would like to propose replacing them with: 1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and invite further di

Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license

On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts? ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment, which I think might be Branden's aim. I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that

Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license

On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment, Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far. ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe you mean BY-SA? That shares the troubl

Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test

On 2004-07-12 05:26:00 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] If I remember correctly, implied warranties are incurred by distribution, not by licensing, at least in the US. (Is this true in Britain as well?) I'm not sure, but I believe they happen when any sale occurs or

Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license

On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable? Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a factual history. Cle

Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 a

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On 2004-07-12 15:53:45 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade or suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from -legal speak for themselves. If there are that many, I guess a lot of these are either n

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

On 2004-07-12 15:43:55 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *snort* This is just getting comical now. Since when is supplying a copy of source considered a fee? It was suggested to me that compelled contribution of copyrightable work to the upstream would probably be classed as con

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] In fact, the DFSG do not deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination. Are you sure? Really sure? Can you explain why? "DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-12 16:37:33 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can -legal do anything apart from saying a `no'? Yes, -legal can enumerate the problems. So we need to look at the license, is it not? I will not answer a negated question directly here. What you described is not loo

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

On 2004-07-12 17:39:18 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not really, since upstream will have as much trouble requesting the modifications, or even knowing about them, won't they ? :))) Nothing says it should be an individual request, or time-limited, or anything. I'm not sure whe

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 17:11:43 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a possible risk when the licence is being discussed and leave it at that? I'm happy with that, in general. Is this acceptable for a licence already covering

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free Software Foundation. That part seems inevitable in the current situation. FSF does not claim that FDL'd works are free software. That said, FDL is probab

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 19:06:37 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For example, we could create a separate archive for documentation which imposes different rules, somewhere between main and non-free. Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on -project. -- MJR/

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 19:25:13 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * MJ Ray: Please explain how you would do that without a GR in a new thread on -project. I'm fully aware that this requires a GR because it involves changing the Social Contract. So it's not the curren

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the thread, you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free. Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the argument in one direc

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray wrote: http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set of circumstances)? Is that arbitrary? It's also a practical difficulty, as we

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 18:52:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * MJ Ray: Can you explain why? Maybe it didn't seem important when the DFSG were written? [...] I doubt arbitrary termination clauses are a new problem, even since then. Sorry for the complications.

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

On 2004-07-13 00:33:38 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I distribute source alongside them is a fee. How is this a fee, if we are not obliged to give it to the licensor? [...] In order to claim that you can't d

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: MJ Ray wrote: http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set of circumstances)? Is that arbitrary? Enfor

Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-13 20:59:07 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please don't send me provate correspondance about public matters then, There seemed little reason to point out your stupidity in public, but you think otherwise. Fine. It's still not good to repost private to public. -- MJR/

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

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 post better legal advice on that aspect yet? I still suspect that modifications are of suffici

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-13 22:39:36 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] I still suspect that modifications are of sufficient value to be regarded as a fee. The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-13 23:05:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of copyright" requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous, IMO. As I said elsewhere, I'm unconv

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On 2004-07-13 21:39:31 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree. Focussing on packages only would require too many analyses, indeed. Are you claiming that "this package fails to follow for the same reasons as that one" requires more analyses than analysing the licence and the

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >