Andres Salomon wrote:
> It would appear that the new upstream release of libapache2-mod-perl2 has
> been relicensed; from the ASL 1.1 to the ASL 2.0. As has already been
> discussed, the ASL (both 1.1 and 2.0) and GPL are
> incompatible (at least, the FSF claims they are). What has previously
>
Andrew Saunders wrote:
> An even greater worry is a clause that appears to make the Project
> responsible for enforcing compliance with the license terms:
>
>> You agree to use your best efforts to see that any user of the
>> Software licensed hereunder complies with this Agreement.
>
> First of
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
>>> cases
>>> above, terminate?
>> This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
>> all
>> of the s
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
>> like
>> the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
>> nullifying
>> the patent in question. [...]
>
> What if you wa
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Does it make any difference that the company is question has been
> dissolved and they basically dropped everything into the public domain?
Yes, it *would*
> From http://www.loonygames.com/content/1.10/guest/
>
> ---
> Around July, Crack first missed payroll. August ca
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
>> against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
>> such a patent in a counterclaim?
>
> What does this have to do with free so
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Are the UCAR routines copyright of the type that will expire (this
> year?)?
In the US, no copyrights will actually expire for twenty years or more.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Raul Miller wrote:
> * The license doesn't discrimate against people, groups or fields of
> endeavor. [We do not recognize "people wanting to enforce particular
> intellectual property claims" as a field of endeavor, or the GPL wouldn't
> be free.]
It's the lack of particularity which makes this
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
>> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
>> special libgcc exception, etc.
>
> I don't believe there are any LGPL parts.
libf2c/libU77
portions of libiberty
portions of
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
>
> How so?
>
> [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
Raul Miller wrote:
> The DFSG does not mandate good editorial practice, good coding style or
> any of a variety of other virtues.
But does it allow a license to prohibit such virtues?
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> > It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
>> > my derivate.
>
>> I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
>
> Only if yo
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
>> rendering the document undistributable.
>
> If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
We can, however, perhaps di
Raul Miller wrote:
> Some licenses (the GPL is a good example) include requirements which
> are relevant to the copyright as a whole. In the case of the GFDL,
> however, it's not that specific.
You're just wrong here. It is that specific.
>From the GFDL:
A ``Modified Version'' of the Document
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> That's not my claim. You can provide some additional context indicating
> the temporal nature of the claim and your beliefs about the situation.
On the COVER? This is not practical. And it still doesn't d
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:01:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> That is a non-solution. Telling a lie and then saying, "oops, the
>> above statement is a lie, but a previous author requires me to tell
>> it" will (1) not make the lie go away, (2) help nobody, and (3) make
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > For example: you can't take code from gcc and code from metafont and
>> > combine them to build a new compiler -- at least not under the
>> > current licenses of those programs.
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> It's not forbidden to
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
>> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
Raul Miller wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> >
>> >>Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
>> >>INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
>> >>consists of independent work
Humberto Massa wrote:
> Yeah, but if they require forced co-distribution, I understand that they
> are considered generally non-DFSG-free.
You can require that the source be distributed to the person to whom you are
distributing the binary. You can't require that it be distributed to
anyone *els
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Your copy of the DFSG must be missing clause 3.
>>
>> | 3. Derived Works
>> |
>> | The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
>> | allow them to be distributed under the same terms as th
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:07:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in
>> > distributed binaries.
>>
>
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
>> > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies
>> > which have been functionally modified to better integrate with
>> > microsoft's palladium?
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:22:11PM
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make
>> arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the
>> very core of the DFSG.
>
> Given that "arbitrary functional modific
Raul Miller wrote:
>> Making copies of the derived work is *not* forbidden by the GPL.
>
> You mean because it's outside the scope of the GPL?
No, because clause (2b) only applies to distribution. Copying of modified
versions in source form is allowed provided the conditions in (2a), (2c),
and
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Nothing prevents them from doing so. That, however, does not affect
>> the *fact* that, for whatever reasons, they do not *actually* do
>> so. Hence a claim that they do is *factually incorrect*.
>
> I'm very
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:05PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> "keep intact" does not mean the same as "unmodified".
>
> But we're still talking about a case where not all derived works are
> allowed.
Duh! We have stated that certain restrictions on derived works are OK. Bu
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:21:53AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> > I was not proposing "make gcc work on that OS", I was proposing
>> > functional modifications to GCC to make it integrate better with that
>> > environment.
>>
>> There is nothing in the GPL that forbids fu
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:35:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> With the exception of a very narrow set of restrictions
>> related to copyright acknowledgement and warranty disclaimers, the
>> nature of changes to the code is not restricted by the GPL.
>
> Eh?
He means w
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This is allowed by the GPL and required to be allowed by the DFSG, of
>> course, as long as the resulting gcc binary can be distributed under the
>> terms of the
>> GPL. The GPL doesn't care what kinds of chang
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Being unmodifiable violates the usual "fully general" interpretation of
> the DFSG. Unfortunately, that interpetation isn't really fully general
> (and, if carried to the limit, would only allow us to distribut
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
>> > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies
>> > which have been functionally modified to better integrate with
>> > microsoft's palladium?
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:13:13AM
Raul Miller wrote:
> Sure, it's "all programs except ___" or "not everything". That's pretty
> much my point.
Yeah, we accept that certain *very limited* restrictions on modification are
Free. So why do you keep going on about this stuff? There's a short list
of OK restrictions we've already ac
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
>> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
>> distributed work.
>
> I don't think this is a very meaningful distin
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
>> > considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of
>> > text in a particular m
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> No. If I create any variation of the context, then the statement
>> immediately stops being true when placed in the variated context.
>
> Except that you can easily create varied contexts where the
> statemen
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> The exception is in 17 USC 117(a); it allows copying by the _owner of
>> a copy_ if it is either "an essential step in the utilization of the
>> computer program" or a backup copy.
>
> Which, in the context of
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> WTF? Have you read the GFDL?
>
> Yes.
>
>> "A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
>> the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
>> publishers or aut
Humberto Massa wrote:
> Branden, in Brasil, the copyrights law (9610/98) makes databases
> copyrighted, IF and only if "their selection, organization, or the
> disposition of their content" is a novel intellectual creation. The CDDB,
> for example, would not be covered by this definition (its sele
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently
>> the
>> caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
>
> Loading a regist
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not
> subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alternatively
> "copyright protection does not subsist", but even lawyers don't
> u
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 10/05/2004 16:44 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>
>>Humberto Massa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> >> **The library itself would be GPL.**
>>
>>
> See below :-)
>
>>I just added some additional freedoms/terms for people who
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> volumes
>
> Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just
Maybe I am, actually.
> arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days o
Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> I've been asked to run this by a larger audience...
>
> They honestly want feedback, so I'll collect any
> thoughts/gripes/whathaveyou and send them back.
>
"Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any
modified or derived work) of the Software
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Guido Trotter wrote:
>> The code for ipw2100 is free software. To load the driver you'll need a
>> firmware which is non-free and subject to an EULA (for details see
>> http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2). Debian cannot thus
>> distribute this thing (the firmw
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say
>> > it's too tolerant of licensing problems.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> OK. I would interpret it as meaning "
Raul Miller wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
>> >> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
>> >> distribute
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
>> words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
>> modified for you hypothetical environment would be non-distribu
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
>> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
>> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
>
> O
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal
>> > activities
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law"
>> clauses is non-free. That is a longstandi
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Why not?
>
> Because palladium is a proprietary work, and it's more than just an OS.
>
> I'll grant that if the changes were limited to what was required to get
> the OS to support it, that would probably
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
the original work were in the public domain
The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point.
In general, choice-of-l
Walter Landry wrote:
>Rather, they would file in California court, because that is where
>California law is decided. The whole point of choice of law clauses
>is to force everything to happen in a particular place.
No; to my knowledge, this is simply wrong. California law can be decided in
fede
Walter Landry wrote:
>But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
>other.
Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of venue, which we also
Don't Like.) I still think it's non-free; I mean, gee
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which
>copyright would subsist if the world were different.
Perhaps you've missed the point. I'll try more detail:
Whether there exists a valid copyright on a work depends on
* aspects intrinsic to the work
*
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> We have allowed clauses of the fairly narrow form "You must not do
>> thing X with this work if it is illegal to do so in your jurisdiction"
>> before, though I don't care
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which
> covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is
> free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and
> may be acceptable for main if one can extract th
Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
> that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
> just give examples of things it *cannot*.
Well, I like the approach a lot.
> I think that such a revision
> could get the guideline
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
>Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party.
This sounds completely unacceptable, if it means what it says. It's also
probably invalid in the US. Copyright assignments must be signed an
>> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > I would be quite comfortable allowing patent "retaliation"
>> > restrictions, but
>> > only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license
>> > rights must
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
> deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
> the GPL at all.
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> I'd like to append something like the f
Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Hello legal wizards,
>
> I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
> determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
> is distributable in non-free.
>
> The license can be found here:
> http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmw
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For
>> instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work,
>> has
>> "ap
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:14:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior
>> > written
>
> I should have quoted this one in full:
>
> 4. Products derived from
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>>
>> which render its problems
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 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 no
Matthieu Delahaye wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
> author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
> respecting Debian policies.
>
> The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
> "license
Josh Triplett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
>>
>> "I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
>> link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
>> No warranty offered and no liability accepted."
>
> "Ple
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Making our organization's ideas known to Creative Commons could have
> meant a better suite of licenses for the 2.0 release. Instead, the
> opportunity was missed. As far as I know, the above-mentioned analysis
> wasn't forwarded to Creative Commons before today.
How dist
Jim Marhaus wrote:
>
> Hi all -
>
> With the recent discussion about choice of venue, I was wondering about
> the Mozilla license. Specifically, the Mozilla Public License v. 1.1 [1]
> seems to contain a choice of venue clause in section 11:
>
> | With respect to disputes in which at least one
Andre Lehovich wrote:
> (Please cc: me on replies)
>
> The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
> from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
> Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
> man pages because until recently the license prohibited
>
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote:
>> The latest version (1.67, 20 May 2004) now allows
>> modification, "so long as any conflicts with the standard
>> are clearly marked as such in the text".
>
> This seems to be reasonable. It's also right
Evan Prodroumou wrote:
>On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to
>get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions
>of the CC licenses.
Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?...
The trademark issue appears to be an issue solely with the web
Andrew Pollock wrote:
> [[ Please CC me on all correspondence, I'm not subscribed ]]
>
> Hi,
>
> I've filed an ITP (WNPP #252999) on some software that is licensed under
> the GPL.
>
> The source does not contain anything like a COPYING or LICENSE file or
> anything where the author asserts c
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> | With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen
>> | of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the
>> | United States of America, any litigation relating to this License
>> |
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>
>> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from
>> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
>> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a
>> blanket notice somewhere in the distri
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure though,
> that absent a decision from a higher court, a court can choose to hear any
> case it wants to -- if that court decides to hear your case, either you
> appear or you're toast. Different courts just have different rules about
> what constitutes a va
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> NN> Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
> NN> little bit of it which is troublesome.
>
> Thanks for your close a
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AS" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Me> One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
> Me> free'.
>
> AS> Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
> AS> not. There is no "partially free" or "semi-
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
>> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
>> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
>> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
>
> Wh
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just about to package "psybnc"[1], a popular irc bouncer.
>
> A closer look into the src/ dir revealed that the author seems to have
> followed the Free Software spirit by not re-inventing a lot of wheels,
> but didn't pay close attention to legal stuff.
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Moreover, the GPL requires that *source code* be accompanied or offered.
> This POSIX license requires that *nroff source* be included.
>
> What if I created a derivative work by
> step 0) converting it from nroff to some other typesetting language
> (e.g. DocBook
I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h
has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission
to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs
(IMO incorrectly) and proceeded to ignore it for at least four uploads. Th
it prohibitively expensive for somebody to
>> defend themselves.
>
> This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It
> only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the
> choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant
Mahesh T. Pai 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. If the license does not grant a patent license in
> respect
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
>> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that
>> > you perform in some way, e.g. by distribut
.jareeN. wrote:
>
> Sorry if this is a really silly/of_topic question.
It's not.
> I am a LFS user and I want to use free Linux kernel for my GNU/Linux
> system, by free I mean which is free from binaries and non-free code.
> Does such a kernel exists ?
>
> I mean some kind of patch.
At the
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
>> 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
>> reselling the game as an individual item.
>>
>> Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
>
> AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowe
Romain Francoise wrote:
> Package: jftpgw
> Version: 0.13.5-1
> Severity: serious
>
> The jftpgw package currently distributed in Debian has two license
> problems:
>
> 1. The source contains a file named snprintf.c that doesn't contain any
>copyright notice or license header. It appears to
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>> it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
> exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."). I hope
> that a lic
Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
>> Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
>> of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
>>
>> It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
>
> The usual contention is that ha
Francesco P. Lovergine 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
> a credits note as required in the BSD license.
Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
> Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
No. It seems pretty close, but there are a few deadly clauses. Gah, this
is a lawyerly monstrosity
> ---
> APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I believe the issue is that unlike patents and copyrights, unenforced
> trademarks become "diluted" and no longer enforcable.
Terminology confusion here; "dilution" is a separate concept from
enforcability. Look up "trademark infrignment" and "trademark dilution".
Indeed,
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
> on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
> whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
>
> Please note that until other debian-legal participants
Josh Triplett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
>> into account a bit. I've a few comments...
>
> Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
> terms of software covered by the license, rather than the lice
MJ Ray wrote:
> Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
> I have
> asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
> incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
> any words from the decision-makers. Thi
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
>> suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
>> a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or
1 - 100 of 777 matches
Mail list logo
