Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
>> distributed source code be provided to the government.
>
>Except that there are no such governments. G
distributed, are subject to the following requirements" - what does
"when distributed" mean? At the point at which they are distributed? If
distributed once, these must always occur? 6a and 6b sound like they
only apply at the time of distribution.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
>> aren't license ter
27;s
>just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without
>turning it into something other than guidelines.)
I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
"distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than
"distribute source too".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"better". As a result, I think the
argument collapses to the forced distribution clause rather than the
permissions grant clause.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett writes:
>> I'm not convinced that applies. The clase is "These items, when
>> distributed, are subject to the following requirements" - what does
>> "when distributed" mean? At the point a
rtners, with whom carefully drafted
>non-disclosure agreements have been signed. I can't imagine the legal
>department accepting anything like 6c.
Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
info
#x27;t have
any objection to that. I doubt I'd consider "You must provide these
changes to the NSA" acceptable unless the NSA got into the business of
distributing any software except their own. But, frankly, I haven't
thought about it too hard yet.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
er, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code, with a permissive license I
>didn't want to give them!
Your fault for releasing the code under the QPL. The same could have
happened if you'd released it under BSD.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
>> distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
>> permissions grant. Ups
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything
>> other than the code they cover.
>
>I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
>> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
we'd have to ask Bruce to have any real idea.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g to discuss what Real want to achieve by the patent
clauses so we can try to find some sort of acceptable terms?
New licenses seem very keen on providing patent termination clauses.
It's really a discussion that we have to have at some point, especially
since the DFSG as it currently stands really doesn't cover the area too
well.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7;d be a sizable proportion of developers
who would accept it as DFSG-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x27;s great for us if Real fixes
> the little DFSG-incompatibilities, 2.1d and 2.1e are the real big
> problems. Can you say anything about those which might convince me
> and others that they're Free?
2.1e appears harmless. 2.1d is evidently where we're going to disagree.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SL discovers that it breaches a patent he
holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his
rights to do anything with the code?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL never restricts rights provided
to me under copyright law. The RPSL does.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sence of a license termination clause merely allows the license
to fall back to a state that we'd consider free in the first place
(though I expect Brian to turn up in a moment to complain that losing
your patent license means you can't distribute it under the same license
any more...)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ics doesn't further anyone. And, rightly or
wrongly, that's how we're currently appearing.
If we do want to hold these opinions, we need to show why they're
important. Corner cases of badness aren't convincing in themselves - we
need to show why protecting those corner case
way, but I've not fully understood it yet.
The context is the IBM Public License. It only terminates the patent
license, not the copyright one.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
> * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s).
> *=20
> * Author: David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
all seems harmless. If a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip XFree license)
> Surely that can't be Free.
Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
non-free.
(That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an additional restriction, and thus conflicts with GPL 6.
The FSF claim it's GPL compatible
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html - the X11 license). You
might want to point it out to them.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is standard
> boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being
> written into copyright by default in US law).
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. Since
clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it makes
it difficult to take the summary terribly seriously.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you who has read the X11 license has failed to think about the
implications.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. Since
>> clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it makes
>> it diffic
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the copyright I found in a program I'd like to package.
> Is it acceptable for 'main' or should I ask for a better copyright?
Looks fine to me.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L code in
netatalk could be rewritten to use GnuTLS directly.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bly claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
form under the current license.
The whole argument over whether linking against a library makes a
derived work has never (as far as I'm aware) been tested in court. It's
probably the weakest part of the GPL.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL package"
> source: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00173.html
GPLed software linked against OpenSSL is not legal to distribute, in
main or elsewhere. There is an argument that it would be illegal to
distribute the source as well. I find this line of argument unlikely,
but the FSF occasionally appear to use it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
c linking the
libraries must be GPL compatible. Nobody has so far been willing to have
a lawsuit over this, so it's not possible to confirm or deny this.
Believing the FSF is safer than not doing so, so we take the low-risk
approach.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
es that we only consider the GPL
free because we explicitly say it is is insane. Without considering the
GPL free, we have nothing. Interpreting the DFSG in such a way that we
can only ship a kernel and basic userland because the GPL is explicitly
listed suggests that the interpretation is incorrec
on. I have to pass along 2, but
> I don't get to take advantage of it at all.
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lready free should never be a problem, even if those
freedoms only apply to certain people.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
>> free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
>
> I am hardly the first person to bring this up [
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
>
> It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that
> it's the requirement that I must grant extr
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:09, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and
> > granting of extra freedoms?
>
> Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a per
fferent set to others is non-free
If the first is free, I have difficulty in seeing how the second is
non-free (providing, of course, that either set of freedoms in option b
would be free on its own)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
>
> At least we understand your sanity standard now ;)
It's fairly internally consistent...
>> Raul remembe
his consensus for over a
> year, I believe.
>
> What needs to be done to get this done ?!?!?
I'm in discussion with SPI's trademark team to determine what they feel
the best plan of action would be. I'll report back when I have
something.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license.
If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU GPL
version 2 or higher" probably /ought/ to be free, since there's never a
situation where it's not at least the GPL. But DFSG 3 appears to prevent
it. I don't think that's what it was intended to do, but the only person
who knows is Bruce.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG 3 appears
to claim, but on re-reading the debian-private thread which shaped the
social contract I'm becoming increasingly convinced that that's not its
intention. I'd be interested to hear arguments for why DFSG 3 /should/
mean what it appears to mean.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hing
that we feel we ought to be able to do. The DFSG isn't about wanting
upstream to be nice to us - it's a set of freedoms that we require, and
as long as those freedoms are provided we should be happy.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian to change them rather than argue about licenses
that you believe are non-free anyway.
More bluntly - if you disagree with the DFSG then I don't think you
should be attempting to influence decisions regarding which licenses
satisfy them.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
try to get DFSG 4 fixed. If
you're successful with that, then I will happily apologise and admit
that your opinions are closer to those of Debian as a whole than mine
are. Until then, yes, I think your arguments are weakened. "This set of
people who hold a different set of freedoms to Debian believe this
license is non-free" is not a convincing reason for Debian to believe
that a license is non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
patch
the right to send it to you in the first place is the QPL, and they have
no right to send you that patch unless they've already granted
permission to the copyright holder.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ns themselves
> licensed under the QPL.
I've been mostly ignoring Sven. I don't find this argument terribly
interesting.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've been mostly ignoring Sven. I don't find this argument terribly
>> interesting.
>
> OK, so you're ignoring the maintainer of the package in questio
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A
>> hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license.
>> If you download
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:34:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The only thing DFSG 4 says is that patch clauses are acceptable. It
>> effectively means "Modification by patches is equivilent to modification
>> by other
license. The
GPL requires that derived works be released under the GPL. You can't do
both of these at the same time.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ork C to be released under both, and I
don't have the right to do that since this would now effectively mean
that there was a version of A under the other license and a version of B
under the GPL.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It says nothing of the sort. The only thing DFSG 4 says relating to
>> patches is that requiring that modifications be patches is acceptable.
>> The only thi
loper
population at large. That seems like a reasonable approximation of
"extreme".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
opulation at large. That's because experts tend to have
> detailed opinions about their field of expertise.
You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
extreme compared to the rest of the project.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ng it. Can you post the methodology and results
> you used, please? It will be very useful for some other situations.
It's an impression. Hence "seems" rather than "is".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
>> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
>
> I'm arguing that what you percei
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
> >
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > �"surprising modifications"?
>
> Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which
> he didn't expect.
I think you're
But
> that doesn't make practically unmodifiable programs free.
You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free?
I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses
actually make impossible.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:30 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the
> > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's
>
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
>> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
>
> And in
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of
> discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct).
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
code makes a less
modifiable version of the same code non-free - so in cases where
firmware was written in something other than hex, the hex version is
non-free. On the other hand, it is an interesting question - I'll bring
it up at the weekend
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pproximately as hard to deal with as
brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
motive of the author important?
I'd also suggest that this thread be moved to debian-project. It's more
of a discussion of the DFSG than of licenses.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
>> motive of the auth
"better"
version of that source.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gement in this work
revokes your license". Claiming that the two are equivilent is missing
the point entirely. One is a license that limits acts that have nothing
whatsoever to do with the software, and one isn't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 08:14:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I think you mean "Any lawsuit claiming patent infringement in this work
>> revokes your license". Claiming that the two are equivilent is missing
>>
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 19:31]:
>> RMS is quoted as saying "Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently
>> forfeits the right to distribute the code at all", which implies that
>> the G
ights. We allow the GPL's limitation because we
believe it furthers free software. We haven't had a proper discussion
about whether termination clauses of this nature help or hinder free
software. If you'd like to have that discussion, then -project is the
right place to see it happen.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ion.
Why is copyleft other than the use of copyright to enforce a political
position (ie, that the source should always be available to people with
binaries)?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly
>> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute
>> binaries witho
d modify an image of a trademark without
providing a license to use the trademark would be more restrictive than
the licenses suggested above, but is something that I don't think we've
really considered in the past.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently
forfeits the right to distribute the code at all", which implies that
the GPL doesn't protect the rights of people who have violated it in the
past.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tware should not be allowed to use that piece of software.
Argument B:
Since enforcement of software patents by nuclear power plant technicians
is bad, nuclear power plants should not be allowed to use a given piece
of software.
Please demonstrate the equivilence of these arguments.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ot if they want to
win). They don't lose their copyright license in the process, but then
the GPL allows the copyright holder to distribute binaries without
source without losing their copyright license as well.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
actions are equivilent to unacceptable actions without
actually suggesting why is not a useful use of anyone's time.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Is this free software licence according to DFSG?:
>
> http://java.net/jrl.csp
No. It only grants modification permission for research use, and forbids
commercial distribution.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
affect your ability to use the software. In the absence of
actively enforced patents, I can see no way that the terms of a patent
license should affect the freeness of the software.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g for one of them be acceptable? I'm not entirely
clear on whether it would be an additional restriction or not.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
butable for profit on its
own (though some believe that there should be). DFSG 1 is explicitly
written to allow that. The requirement to state that the code has been
modified is less awkward than what DFSG 4 allows, so I don't see any
problem with it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut that'll depend on specific code
rather than being a general problem (in the same way that the GFDL's
granting of permission to add invariant sections isn't a problem - but
people using that permission is).
I think it's probably DFSG-free, but plainly GPL incompatible.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nt. Picking on drivers that
force us to notice their dependencies on non-free code while ignoring
drivers that are just as dependent (but in a less obvious way) is
hypocrisy.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would make more sense if I sent it to the right list, really. Sorry
about that.
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
>> debian-legal
So far, this is all a repeat. It wasn't convincing any of
> the last couple times, so it won't be this time.
Note that the social contract says "requires", not "depends". I'm
inclined to believe that policy is in the wrong here.
(This does not mean that I believ
are when I force it kicking and screaming into a filesystem?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at we want the SC to say and then change it so
that it matches that desire.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
>> a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
>> to do her
mining that most firmware is software.
Verilog describes the function of a piece of hardware, in the same way
that plans for a house describe the way it should fit together - but in
that form, they do not provide the functionality that the physical
representation provides. On the other hand, t
machine
code. You can even extract bits of it and run them. It looks awfully
like software. The fact that you lack the skills to turn it into
something that you recognise as software doesn't mean it isn't software.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> will happily present you with a copy of your system firmware (assuming
>> you're on x86). If you run ndisasm over it, you'll find it's x86 machine
>> co
#x27;t determine policy. There are packages of this type
in both main and contrib, and the ftp-masters don't seem too concerned
about the issue. As a project, we haven't made any decision whatsoever.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rference at certain
frequencies. This appears to be due to bugs in the dsp firmware. The
manufacturer is uninterested.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> /why/ those freedoms are no longer necessary. What is it about that code
>> that makes the ability to modify and distribute modified varients less
>> interest
ks.
Short-sighted, yes. An excellent way of losing community good-will, yes.
But I think we can ship it in main.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
u can find me a piece of hardware that can be driven by the
kernel's orinoco driver and which contains no non-free executable code,
I will agree that the driver does not require the use of non-free
executable code. But not until then.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing given freedoms that
other users don't, providing that everyone obtains rights that satisfy
the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
101 - 200 of 468 matches
Mail list logo
