On 2004-07-14 00:32:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
2) The first sentence clearly states the full name of the licence,
the
version number and any software packaged or ITP'd for debian that is
under that licence, with links as appropriate.
While
On 2004-07-14 00:21:30 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] RMS has claimed that failing to comply with the GPL means
that your license is effectively terminated, even if you cease doing
so.
Even an accidental breach of the GPL could result in the copyright
holder contending
On 2004-07-14 02:17:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't
seem
like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common.
That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if necesa
On 2004-07-14 03:12:27 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The DFSG FAQ does
partially address this issue for the most widely-referenced issues,
but
slightly less common issues often receive a "go read the archives"
response, which is sometimes harsher than necessary.
Both the FA
On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you are going to ignore constant factors, then you might
as well say that both approaches will require O(n) summaries.
As far as I can tell, -legal only gets asked about a few packages
under any licence, so the appeal t
On 2004-07-14 04:39:29 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Having a general case
to work from seems superior than working from just another package
summary, which may have various special-case differences of its own.
In reality, I suspect that the separate license analysis app
On 2004-07-14 08:40:47 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] i know i will again get flamed for this. Especially the
way Overfiend and co have treatened me in the past.
[...] and i fear that a solution to this will happen days before the
sarge release, and i asked to take actions,
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring hammering their web server?
I don't think it's practical to
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
I'm not
On 2004-07-14 21:19:33 +0100 Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, I encouraged summarizing and
documenting the findings of -legal about licenses [...]
Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
review of licenses" suggeste
On 2004-07-14 22:31:12 +0100 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] in that case it seems (at least to me) a bit weird
if we focused on *one* particular package, rather than on the license
L
itself.
If we can find a typical case, there might be little practical
difference. It just
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Roll up! Roll up! Sniper rifles for every
On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Distribution is no more of interest to the original developer than
modification. If I'm distributing to you, what business of the
developer's is it? [
On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] For almost every license discussion
on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
does.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't have the tools
for analysing licences without applic
On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
distributed modifications.
Why do we believe in one of these but not the other?
The second loo
On 2004-07-15 13:19:07 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Find some arguments that
don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
than just handwave madly to convince me about the "fee" one) and I'll
listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth
On 2004-07-16 00:11:52 +0100 Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time)
are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
Le
On 2004-07-16 00:32:58 +0100 Martin Quinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[Please keep the bug in CC for logging, as well as Eitan (upstream
author)]
Done.
[...] In other word, does the DFSG allows such thing?
I think so in letter, especially given the LPPL's definitions, but it
feels bad t
[CCd: I remember Sven saying he is not a -legal reader]
On 2004-07-17 02:40:54 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
libraries which is linked with the code is LGPL, which is QPL
compatible, plus some exception that RMS suggested us. I participated
to
that discussion back then, and se
On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert
island tests.
Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would
much have
prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] There's no consistent and coherent argument going on,
other than a sort of fuzzy "We think it's not free, and we can sort of
point at these two things and handwave and say they cover them". And,
frankly, that's not co
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-19 17:34:12 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
You have mentioned this to me before, but I did not find it in the
list
archive. Do you have a more specific reference, please?
No sorry, sea
On 2004-07-19 18:11:53 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your
continual
unprovoked rudeness and paranoia.
Not to mention the way Branden and its cronies greated
On 2004-07-19 20:55:41 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What does our freeness guidelines have to say about licence clause
that are
lacking in legality ? Are they still considered ?
The guidelines are silent on that, as I'm sure you could tell. They
still worry some -legal contr
On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a
Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no
such thing.
Thus
On 2004-07-19 22:27:05 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
Elsewhere you thank people for not cc'ing. I am confused about what
you want.
Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be
other
reasons to it. What is the
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-20 00:40:26 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thread starting here probably :
http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200112/msg0.html
Not directly about the QPL though, altough i mention the exact
licencing stand
of ocaml, including the QPLed compiler suite
On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
wrote:
[...]
Hrm, wh
On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
am sure
others keep log and can provide the info.
You can't prove it and no-one can see it because you don't keep logs.
When you get a log, things change.
On 2004-07-20 10:15:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
honored, practically speaking?
I believe it should, if that mention of his name was essent
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all,
you lose
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or
so
On 2004-07-21 11:10:33 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Andrew Suffield:
I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
programs?
The license itself mentions "program" several times, the FSF writes on
Actually, it usually mentions "Program" many times, w
On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you
move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not
to contact you (despite your outrage i
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in
a
newspaper is regarded as "effective notification" if it meets some
In internatio
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve this.
Well, and if you get no answer at all, what
On 2004-07-22 00:53:18 +0100 Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Yes, I saw the debate on this
> when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
> with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
Summarising the discussions
On 2004-07-22 21:14:29 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html
which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause
3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses
On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being
non-free.
I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move
things forward. ;-) In any case, it doesn't matter at this point what
the numbers
On 2004-07-23 11:59:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] ask himself if he honestly
believes to have the legal background enough to make claim.
I assume that this is not a suggestion that only replies of certified
lawyers have value, else your contribution has no value eithe
On 2004-07-23 13:25:04 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
other
| software items that link with the original or modified versions of
the
| Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
following
| requ
On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
competence
and fluent in the Laws of France, in a country local to the
defendent. I
Please do not cc me. I am subscribed. I have tried to respect your
requests in the past.
On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a
signi
On 2004-07-24 12:13:08 +0100 "Parsons, Drew"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After debian-legal goes to all the trouble of determining whether some
licence is free or not, it would be useful for their decision to be
displayed, so others can easily see the decision later, without
having to
waste ti
On 2004-07-26 18:02:52 +0100 Thomas Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] You're replies don't really help me, so if someone
finds the time to give me a short answer what I should do, then I
would
be happy. [...]
Put it somewhere other than main unless the licence is fixed.
--
MJR/slef
On 2004-07-27 11:13:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
See also the "IBM Public License, Version 1.0", which GNU considers to
be free: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Are we sure that follows DFSG yet? FSF have been a little patchy about
broad software pat
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggeste
On 2004-07-28 09:25:36 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The presence of a license termination clause merely allows the license
to fall back to a state that we'd consider free in the first place
That's only true if the licence only terminates the patent licence for
patent infr
On 2004-07-28 11:40:58 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The context is the IBM Public License. It only terminates the patent
license, not the copyright one.
Someone should have fixed the subject line. Further, 2(b) of IBMPL was
not quoted, so it was a link chase to find what
On 2004-08-07 12:14:59 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions
would help too.
We haven't even reliably summarised discussions when they die down
IMO. Are you suggesting something significantly more lightweight? Can
you
On 2004-08-08 10:49:43 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] A weekly "bits from -legal" type post would be a
useful thing: a short summary of licenses/clauses discussed and the
salient points brought up. That might encourage contributions from the
rest of the project, such that
On 2004-08-08 17:13:28 +0100 Fumitoshi UKAI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, should we try to claim not to use debian domain?
I think it would be better just to ask them to make clear they are not
the debian project on the front page. They are selling only debian
software and related products
On 2004-08-09 03:10:06 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not so sure that it should go to d-d-a. For one time deals, where
a legal analysis affects a lot of packages, sure. But not for a
weekly synopsis. That is more like a mailing list of its own (like
kernel-traffic).
The
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
this thread -- is identical to that used in the existing X license.
It can be read a
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an "official" (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who wrote that summary, has since
realized it was a hu
This summary covers 2 August to 8 August 2004.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/maillist.html#00052
Active threads with over 4 posts:
Please pass judgement on X-Oz licences: free or nay?, over 40 posts,
last post 8 Aug
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/threads.html#00014
t an "assertion" rather
than a
"clause".
That's not the impression I have, especially given the "clarification"
posts from X-Oz. Does someone know the legal reasoning of this? Would
the same hold if you appended "You may not wear a hat on Fridays"
wh
On 2004-08-09 12:36:46 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably
make
the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
I think so.
3. Is there any way of getting netatalk with encrypted passwords in
sarge
On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which
is of
course perfectly fine, and allowed according to both the GPL and the
openssl
licence) then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
gnutls
On 2004-08-09 13:55:01 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
you realised this in your later me
On 2004-08-09 18:07:24 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause.
[...] At no point is it obvious to me that "the
following conditions" is ending and being replaced by
On 2004-08-09 18:26:19 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[MJR] summary
guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses
3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not
connect
to the DFSG at all.
Either:
a. I was trying to con debian-legal i
On 2004-08-10 10:37:28 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
release
than nit picking here.
Well, don't post flamebait to debian-legal that seems to s
On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
posted to
debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA.
Read the mailing archive, i think i po
On 2004-08-10 02:10:02 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, "derivative work" is a specific legal term,
defined
by law, not individual licenses.
I've been told it's not in English law, which is why licences which
choose English law should either define it or fin
On 2004-08-10 21:05:32 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
There's a parallel, synonymous term in UK law. Any reasonable court
should accept it as a synonym.
Relying on a reasonable court unless it's really certain might be seen
as a lawyerbomb. What is the synonymous term? Give
On 2004-08-11 20:34:34 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:25AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary
of
threads for this week.
It is truly pathetic that such highlighting is considered necessar
On 2004-08-12 14:22:34 +0100 Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course getting curl to link with an SSL library that isn't GPL
incompatible would also be a fix for this particular case, but I
consider
that a pretty big job that won't happen this year (by me).
I think this might be
On 2004-08-12 14:31:19 +0100 Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did another google and I've found enough references on the topic
"openssl
is PART of the OS" etc so no need to say anything else.
That doesn't work. OpenSSL is not an required part of the debian
operating system at pre
On 2004-08-12 23:59:00 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given the fact that this topic seems to come up relatively often,
would it
be a good idea to put a few things into a FAQ for people to refer to?
Yes, and that's why people started work on one already. Please add to
http
On 2004-08-13 10:58:58 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me, I did not make a distinction between "open source" and "free"
software. All I wanted is contribute whatever I do back to the
community.
There are other differences about how they've worked out too. I
summarise so
On 2004-08-18 03:01:59 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
> traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
> information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL
> to something inapprop
On 2004-08-19 08:06:27 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I still wonder what this means for europe, where assigning copyright
seems to
be illegal or something.
Measures with similar effect seem to be possible in other European
jurisdictions. See the FSFE's work on the FLA.
http:
On 2004-08-22 15:36:20 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 03:00:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: [...]
GPL requires that derived works be released under the GPL. You can't
do
both of these at the same time.
I think I disagree.
You can release software under
On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
debian-legal list collectively,
I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a
reasonable
reac
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to
5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs.
[...]
I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a
and 6
s
On 2004-08-24 06:54:22 +0100 Seo Sanghyeon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/doc/License.txt
[...]
Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
Debian main? What could "This is covered under GPL, but only for
non-commercial use" mean
On 2004-08-24 15:15:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
feature macros are a grave mistake [...]
Arrrgh, this list was such a peaceful place. Why do you want to bring
that horrible flamewar here? ;-)
On 2004-08-24 15:01:37 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Debian.
I find the concept of "the more extreme end of the range" odd. What,
there's only one
On 2004-08-24 14:10:42 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the
patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is
only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer
population at lar
On 2004-08-24 16:22:49 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see how you could measure this appearance:
[...] Can you post the methodology and results you used, please? It
will be very useful for some other situations.
It's an
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
the NM
process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved.
I
On 2004-08-24 17:56:54 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes: [stuff]
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here. [...]
I think I've disagreed with Andrew
Index for this date range starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/maillist.html#00359
The 7 most active threads:
NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1
release going into sarge, over 100 posts this week to 22 Aug,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega
On 2004-08-24 22:46:58 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sometimes the subject line is a really awful summary of a thread.
Not my fault. It was broken when I got here, honest! ;-)
Actually, I think there were a couple of really awful subject lines
last week. It would really h
On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
[...]
>> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
>> See cdrecord.c for furt
Date index for period starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00615
Threads with more than 4 posts:
Suggestions of David Nusinow, over 60 posts this week to 27 Aug,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00617
NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream,
On 2004-09-04 15:42:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, this is a clear sign that an OpenSSL-compatible library should be
> considered part of the operating system.
Any new reasoning for that, or just restating in the hope it will become true?
--
MJR/slefMy Opinion Onl
On 2004-09-06 02:24:58 +0100 Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
There are definitely implicit copyright licenses in (US) copyright
case law.
In general, that only concerns us if US law is the one being applied.
I don't think either GPL (for libcurl) or OpenSSL specify US law. If
On 2004-09-07 00:45:25 +0100 Mikael Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] It's not completely clear if the clause is a requirement or
not. My question is, can PortAudio go into the main distribution?
The simplest way to get an answer is to seek clarification from Ross
Bencina and Phil B
On 2004-09-09 06:30:55 +0100 Paul C. Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization
to use
the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would
it make
a substantive difference?
I feel that Debian uses MF's trademarks t
On 2004-09-13 14:15:11 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's an example of a "self-defence action" where the license
terminates?
Here:
You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
AIUI, cross-claims and counterclaims are normal self-defence when you
are co
On 2004-09-14 11:40:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new
and I've never seen a consensus on the issue.
This habit people have recently developed as dismissing
On 2004-09-15 04:14:40 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Does that really matter, if the condition for termination is
acceptable?
If the patent license is terminated, the only reason to care whether
the copyright license terminates as well is if you intend to ignore
the
lack of
On 2004-09-15 09:31:43 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:06:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the
software. [...]
(This much doesn't seem too convincing.)
Oh well, it seems a
On 2004-09-14 23:38:26 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
The OSI lists no licences as "free".
While pedantically true, I claim this is irrelevant on the basis of
the similarity between the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. The
only significa
On 2004-09-19 14:41:05 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
infringement, your license is terminated.
The other says that if you sue claiming that the sof
On 2004-09-19 16:12:55 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not sure why we should draw a distinction between patent and
copyright licenses.
Patent law and copyright law are very different things. Further,
patents cannot apply to software in all laws, so having these
non-exist
On 2004-09-21 19:09:18 +0100 Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the documentation was to remain GFDL licenced, would be possible to
add a clarification to the licence in order to counter the main
problems which would affect this work? [...]
In general, I think they should grant exceptio
Date index for period starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00835
There were 7 threads with more than 3 posts:
cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation, over 40 posts from 1 Sep to 3 Sep,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg3.html
GPL-licensed packages wi
101 - 200 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
