I thought I'd try dejanews's "forward message to a friend" option, since the
message isn't all that long...
--
This message was forwarded to you from Deja News by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Deja News, the discussion network, offers
of the
copyrighted work ... effect of the use upon potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work..."
I have redirected this discussion (again) to -legal.
Jules
--
Jules Bean |Any sufficiently advanced
[EMAIL PROTECTED],jellybean.co.uk} | technology is indistinguishable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | from a perl script
x27;etre, and the project should not be overly
concerned with them.
Jules
eferences'.
So, in some sense this is a 'non-restriction'.
However, it could be construed to fail the current DFSG. Maybe we should
exempt this (it doesn't impinge on the freeness of the software, as a piece
of software).
Jules
P.S. Yes, it should be on -legal. I'm mai
legal counsels who have any experiences in the relatively
young field of 'free licenses'. If only there were more, and more were
prepared to help. Certainly, Troll should take legal advice, but I'm sure
they have, and I'm sure they will continue to do so.
Jules
/-
leased under the QPL. Which is not
required.
So you can, in fact, modify Qt and release the modification under any
license you choose. The only reason you wouldn't do this, and would in fact
release your mods under the QPL, is so that the mods can be f
. I am opposed to
> > that and I think others are too.
>
> I was wrong. There is no consensus.
The feeling was that, in the absence of a consensus, we should not abandon
the status quo (I.e. don't go throwing anything out until we ha
hold
copyright.
*however*, the other side of the same coin is that I don't have full control
over the license, since my patches may be inseparable, and the combined work
requires permission from Troll to distribute.
(none of this contradicts Joseph's points, I'm just clearing up som
the GPL on it by including source code or an offer
to provide such.
Perhaps you would like to email the author and try to persuade not to
adopt this strategy?
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evel
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 07:36:33PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > The copyright is GPL with some uglified files (the graph layout
> > > modules)---they are no longer human readable. This should be
> > > acceptable to go in m
ied by people in the arms industry'.
3) Is it actually possible for a license (as opposed to a signed contract)
to restrict use? My understanding was that copyright law was all about
copying.
In terms of zope, Bruce will be asking them to consider making the
requirement a suggestion - so do
.. I feel we (in the sense of the free
software community) are really making ground at the moment.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:02:36PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > In terms of zope, Bruce will be asking them to consider making the
> > requirement a suggestion - so don't go flaming them :-)
>
> I'd like to add that I
yx authors were prepared to say that
*explicitly*. The KDE authors only ever made that permission implicit.
(And it is the case that the KDE authors didn't even have the right to
give that permission with repesct to the GPL stuff they didn't write).
Jules
/+--
all those
> > applications.
> >
> > Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [Debian approaches Microsoft with Open Source (TM) proposal. News at 11.]
Debian has persuaded companies to open source their code before.
And the open source movement is making some progress with
other change in
these notices.
I would imagine so, therefore.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey |
|
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > gettext had a security problem, Bug #28850, which has been fixed by
> > > Vincent Renardias in gettex
ion.
This is awful.
> 04. Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for
> reviews or quotes in other works without this permis-
> sion notice if proper citation is given.
This is fair use, actually. I suppose there's no harm in making it
explici
On 26 Jan 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, the restrictions below do not prevent us distributing on CD, and
> > I believe that we already have docs in main with licenses as harsh as
> > this.
>
> E.g. the
ive the
permission to modify, notwithstanding the fact that some other licenses
are very clearly derived works.
4) Some good, 'free' software has non-free documentation
This poses a dilemma for our principles.
Our conclusions, IMO, should be included either in the new DFSG, if we
acce
ward
There is no problem with the payment details. Indeed the artistic and GPL
make the same restriction. However, this doesn't give permission to
modify. Does some other file give this permission?
Jules
/+---+-----\
| Jelibean ak
physical act of transferring a copy'
gives any distributor some freedom of interpretation here.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> Ysgrifennodd Jules Bean ar Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:33:08PM +:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> >
> > > goodies on a CD-ROM collection or whatever, but if you sell @code{mgetty}
> >
gt; General Public License for more details.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/TeX4ht/mn.html
>
>
parenthetical phrases (although,
it does depend what he means by commercial - the GPL distributing modified
versions commercially binary-only, which could be what he means) -
however, I didn't read his license as trying to 'modify' the licenses
m in a commercial environment'. It
limits 'commercial use of the code, by modifying it and selling the
resultant binaries without providing source'.
>
> > This is, IMO, what the author is refer
that is done?
>
> The maintainer doesn't appear to be responding. If the mantainer's not
> around, maybe someone can do a NMU, as this is a Slink critical bug?
Seems like a DFSG-free, if rather agressively worded ;) license.
Let's wait for an
On 29 Jan 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
> > It doesn't limit 'use of the program in a commercial environment'. It
> > limits 'commercial use of the code, by modifying it and selling the
> > resultant binaries without providing source
age a shiny new rarpd for Debian which carries this
license.
How do we feel about the phrase 'without fee' in this context?
Jules
P.S. Incidentally, we are currently shipping packages with this copyright
in main...
/+---+-\
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 06:46:56PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to package a shiny new rarpd for Debian which carries this
> > license.
> >
> > How do we feel about the phrase 'without fee&#x
ack from us), but still,
unfortunately, has an irritating clause about termination (no, not the 90
day one). Check the -legal archives, if you're interested.
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 E
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:04:52PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > They are also distributed another another license, which is now very
> > nearly free (thanks to positive feedback from us), but still,
> > unfortunately, has an ir
On 4 Feb 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > How do we feel about the phrase 'without fee' in this context?
>
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > Sounds to me like this means "without paying CMU any money", not "you can't
> > ch
On 4 Feb 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
> > However, that's not the only license which Jikes and Secure Mailer are
> > distributed under.
>
> > They are also distributed another another license, which is now very
> > nearly free (thanks to po
art of a non optionnal operating system installation.
> - The program can't be ported, compiled, executed, stored
> on/in any computer running Microsoft operating systems or
> any other product sold by this company or
an appear to 'get copyright' on a work is to manage to
incorporate some original work of your own in such a way that the original
cannot be disentangled. And then the new work has joint copyright - so
permission of both copyright holders is required to copy it.
IANAL :)
Jules
, doesn't have any
precise legal definition. I believe it is normally interpreted, more or
less, as 'you may copy at will'.
Jules
/+---+-----\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
|
itutionally unable to uphold this
copyright, and thus has to give unrestricted permission to copy. That
doesn't mean the code isn't the property (intellectual property, that is)
of the US government - it simply means they won't (mayn't) enforce it.
2) Ashton-Tate have copyright
it - it's simply not your copyright.
iii) If you have contributed some additional work of your own, then the
new work has combined copyright. Whether someone can 'unpick' your work
and resdistribute the original depends on the particular case. If they
did s
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jules Bean wrote:
> > i) 'in the public domain' is a phrase normally used of information, not
> > copyrightable material. As applied to software, a court would likely
> > interpret it as giving unrestricte
ints 4 and 5 suggest that he thinks 'use' means 'distribution'.
Point 6 would appear to include an FTP site, and hence we'd need to tell
him.
However, point 7 suggests that he is actually in favour of modifications,
so maybe h
http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0M.html
I had a brief look, and didn't see any showstoppers.
I'm pretty busy now, and could easily have missed something.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6
ted in a translation approuved by Mario
> Motta."
I would prefer the following replacement for the last sentence.
"Any translated version of this permission notice must have been approved
by Mario Motta".
Jules
/+---+--
7; of what we consider free.
Could you send the whole license (well, don't bother to include the GPL,
we all have copies of that) here, please?
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
|
of value addition would not be truly free.
--- (end of henning's message).
The point here is there is no need to enforce this restriction.
Let's suppose that I write 'Jules' JavaSpace API', an API for using Java
to control space-stations. I license it under the OPL
g to our website? Of course!
> As the logo or part of the logo for your own company? Likely no.
Intel have several logos. For example, Intel wouldn't let me put 'Intel
Inside' on my line of AMD K6 boxes, would t
;m recommend something like:
"The authors would appreciate it if you'd email them at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
describing your distribution."
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one
else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though.
Discussion cc:ed to -legal. Please remove -devel from the Cc:.
Jules
/----+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:12:22PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe
> > it's a pretty small difference, actually...).
>
> Au contraire, there is N
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:36:57PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > > AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any
> > > > one
> > > > else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this,
ntamount to including a revocation clause in the license you
> distribute with the code.
True, I'm afraid.
That's the bugger about allow algorithms to be patented.
What's worse, is that you might not even know the algorithm is patented..
Jules
/----+-
On 18 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
>
> > You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to
> > believe.
>
> A free software license grants rights beyond those permitted to the owner
> of a copy by copyright law. If a
On 18 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
> > But you think that minors cannot work on GPL programs?
>
> I said *if* a minor cannot agree to the GPL. I'm not entirely certain he
> can't.
>
> It is my understanding that the theory behind the un
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Is this DFSG free?
Looks great to me.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Sur
We
allow both of these because not doing so would count out TeX and Apache -
and pragmatically, we drew the line. We wanted to build a complete free
operating system, and we couldn't afford to outlaw some very
important software.
Most o
y for the hard copy.
[snip]
>
> I think the second paragraph makes it non-DFSG-free.
I agree.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | [EMAIL P
ary, which suits me well.
This is all opinion. You may not care about the above scenario, or you
may think it's inevitable. But I do believe that the pressure that the
GPL exerts, because of its incompatibilities, to GPL everything, is a
beneficial one.
Jules
/+---
enter
into contracts to accept this license.
fails DFSG point (5). There's no point telling me why apple added this
clause - I do understand why. Nonetheless, IMO, it fails point (5).
Thanks for listening.
Jules
/+--
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > 2.2(c) is an unpleasant restriction, which probably violates (does
> > violate, IMO) point 3 of the DFSG.
>
> We understand the unpleasantness to some of 2.2(c), but we don't think
> that it
at form, I have no right to deploy
the code.
Note that this is *extremely* inconvienient, since every single trivial
patch-bump on my code requires me to first notify apple. If I have a
public-access CVS server, every single check-in...
Jules
/+---+
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > > Jules:
> > > > Must! I *must* notify apple by filling out the form. If I can't,
> > > > for any of the reasons I suggested
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > I understand your interpretation, Chip.
> > It's the interpretation I'd make, if I had my 'reasonably man' hat on.
>
> Well, since that's the standard that would apply in co
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > Why don't you (try to) persuade Apple to adjust the wording which
> > makes the 'reasonable' explanation explicit?
>
> Hm... OK, what do you think should change, exactly? Would expli
oesn't. It restricts advertising, not distribution.
On the other hand, I don't consider the advertising clause free. I just
consider it a necessary evil (we can't afford to chuck out all BSD stuff).
Jules
/+---+-\
ause is exactly contrary to the ideal of openness.
The ideal of openness is about being able to do what you want with the
code. Building new works, using bits of code you like, discarding bits
you don't.
Forcing a report at every
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > Forcing a report at every stage of the way is too much of an
> > impediment, IMO.
>
> The APSL is satisfied if you just automatically make diffs with a cron
> job, and put them at the same URL ev
posed Java policy in that respect. Almost all of the Java
> stuff shuld go into contrib (because most of them fail to compile with guavac
> or to run with kaffe) and I'll fill in bug reports for that.
Stephane, could you fix your line lengths please?
Jules
n the principle you outline; which is no
surprise, what you're saying is just common sense, especially since we're
in the position to learn from netscape's mistakes.
Even mozilla is modular.
Check out mnemonic, for example. www.mnemonic.org.
Jules
/+---
s.
Note that we do include a variety of textual works (documents) whose
license doesn't comply with the DFSG.
[As an aside the quoted problem isn't a restriction on use, it's a
restriction on printing --- i.e. copying --- and it only requires you
to acknowledge something, which we normall
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:12:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> >
> > Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
>
> I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
> upload them to main. After al
70 matches
Mail list logo
