Previously Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> Any news from RMS yet?
Afaik nobody directly asked him for an answer. Can someone please
do that? I know he's been waiting for some action from us on this.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally un
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> > > Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> > > I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> > > Woody freezes, tha
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 01:06:51PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> So, is it your position that every recipient of a GPLed .deb is given
> a copy of the GPL along with the .deb because the GPL is inside the
> .orig.tar.gz, regardless of whether the recipient of the .deb downloaded
> the .o
At 12:46 am -0800 on December 07, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:29:18PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> > At 10:31 pm -0800 on December 04, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
> > > tarball.
>
> > Do
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:29:18PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> At 10:31 pm -0800 on December 04, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> > We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
> > tarball.
> Don't you see anything wrong with this statement?
What part of "we distribu
At 10:31 pm -0800 on December 04, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
> tarball.
Don't you see anything wrong with this statement?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:55:20PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Do I get to quote Whitman here? "Do I contradict myself, very well then,
> > I contradict myself [I am many, I contain multitudes]" :)
>
> The irony of this quotation coming from someone
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:55:20PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Do I get to quote Whitman here? "Do I contradict myself, very well then,
> I contradict myself [I am many, I contain multitudes]" :)
The irony of this quotation coming from someone who calls himself "John
Galt" is staggering.
--
G. Br
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:30:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
> > > a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
> > > separately.
> > WITH or WITHIN?
> Actually, the preposition used in section 1 o
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> > Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> > I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> > Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.
>
> It migh
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.
It might not hurt to wait for RMS to get back to us wrt what
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > > system that is Debian matter?
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Actually, it does make a
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > system that is Debian matter?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> > GPL for an
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 19:05]:
> Oh, I agree it's not likely. But surely there are Theo wannabies
> (horror) who do have the time.
I'm still in training.
>:->
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all
really impressed down here, I can tel
On 5 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
>
> Well, I ask because again your motives for posting are unclear.
>
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> t
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 18:49]:
> > For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> > to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> > everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 18:49]:
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
Naw, if you think Theo has that kind of time (or
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
Well, I ask because again your motives for posting are unclear.
For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > system that is Debian matter?
> >
> > Actually, it does make a diffe
Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
On 5 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Can we really expect others to follow the DFSG when we do so
> > only when convenient?
>
> "we"?
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mi
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we really expect others to follow the DFSG when we do so
> only when convenient?
"we"?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > system that is Debian matter?
>
> Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> GPL for any
>However, Debian is in a different position, and the problem is that
>people can and do pull .debs off the Debian site and install them on
>other distros. The license really does require that we give them a
>copy of the GPL, and that's a reasonable requirement.
I believe this is doable without fo
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
> > providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing
> > GPL'd .debs without source (
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> system that is Debian matter?
Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users
All debian users already have a copy of the GPL. It is included with
the base systems. Therefore if you're using dpkg, you have the GPL
already. This is not the issue here. The issue is that people using
other distributions can download .debs and use a program such as alien
to convert a .deb t
Hi All,
I haven't read the whole thread(!) but I have two simple solutions(?):
1) Make a GPL package, all other packages depend on it.
or
2) Include the GPL in dpkg (other .dep tools must incorperate it too!)
and let it check with every package if there is a GPL installed or
not.
Too simpli
Hi,
First of all, you had the following headers:
Reply-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Mail-Followup-To: aj, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
I don't know which one you wanted me to use, and "aj" is not a legal
email destination on my machine in any case. Looks like something may
be messed u
This is surely offtopic for -policy by now. Reply-to: set to -legal.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:19:30AM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Waters) wrote:
> > And what exactly *is* the license of a .dsc file? Is it legal for
> > someone to distribute a .dsc by itself?
> Well, in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Waters) wrote:
> If the .deb needs to have one, why doesn't the .diff.gz, which is
> surely also GPL'd?
By the reasoning proposed by some on this list, it should.
> And what exactly *is* the license of a .dsc file? Is it legal for
> someone to distribute a .dsc by itsel
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> Heck, I just duplicated Manoj's feat of downloading the 'ls' binary
> from the FSF's own site at ftp.gnu.org, and I can't help but notice
> that not only does the binary not contain the GPL (I ran strings to
> check), but there isn't even a copy of the GPL
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:12:10PM -0600, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> So... we're caught on a technicality. We're supposedly the "most" free
> of Linux distributions out there. We're violating the GPL, one of the
> most popular licenses for our own packages.
It has not been established that we
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 04:52:35PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > You're thinking of patents, not copyrights. Under US law, copyrights
> > persist until they expire (now 75 years if held by a natural person, 95
> > years if held by a corporation) or are affirmatively abandoned..
>
> Acvtually, I was
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > pkg_add -r gcc on a freebsd box will pull down a binary of gcc without a
> > copy of the GPL.
>
> Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the normal procedure was the
> "ports" mechanism, which pulls down source
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pkg_add -r gcc on a freebsd box will pull down a binary of gcc without a
> copy of the GPL.
Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the normal procedure was the
"ports" mechanism, which pulls down source and compiles it locally.
If it's actually more like the w
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
> > Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
> > the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have an idea: we hack gzip to automatically decompress a particular
> coding sequence to the text of the GPL. Then all we have to do is
> force people to use our hacked gzip (screw up the magic in our
> header) and we don't have to use any additiona
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Acvtually, I was thinking trademarks: Kleenex for the prime example. The
> big issue is collateral estoppel. If there is collateral estoppel in
> copyright law, failure to prosecute infringement may disallow you from
> ever prosecuting the same type of inf
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
> Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
> the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's goal it to make
> Debian his own private whipping boys
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RMS is meeting with lawyers. You brought that tidbit up. What are we
> supposed to think: he's there because he likes their office decor?
He sends email to law professors that he respects, who are experts in
intellectual property law, who are personal frie
[John Galt - Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:50:58 PM CST]
} Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or
} Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen
} the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's goal it to make
} Debian his own private whipp
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:54:24AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:54:24AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > > Negligence is also a crime.
> >
> > Catego
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html
> >
> > Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote:
> >
> > A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is
> >
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > See Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96, 99 (1885). See also USC Title 17,
> > section 507
> >
> > * (b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the
> >provisions of this title unles
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Let's not drive the rhetoric to a feverish pitch, accusing people of
> Thomas> being unreasonable or unthinking. Consider the reasons for that
> Thomas> clause of the GPL,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Show me where we have advertized any individual deb for
> download on your non Debian system, as opposed to piecewise upgrade
> of you preexisting Debian machine.
I'm not sure exactly what RMS has in mind. Most of the obvious cases
certainly
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you, perchance, advocating we keep several (potentially
> several thousand) copies of the GPL on every Debian machine out there
> on the off chance that the end user (despite pointers in the
> copyright file) is unable to get a copy of th
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need
> to read copyrights before redistributing all or part of it.
Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
providing source, I am violating t
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
Raul> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:13:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure I agree wi
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Let's not drive the rhetoric to a feverish pitch, accusing people of
Thomas> being unreasonable or unthinking. Consider the reasons for that
Thomas> clause of the GPL, and consider the ways that our enemies would like
Thom
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
n??
Thomas> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch
Thomas> of pieces up on a web site, the question of whether you
Thomas> intend to distribute the pieces or only the combined whole is
Thomas> a question of wh
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The issue isn't whether you "make something downloadable";
Thomas> it's whether you distribute it. Distributing on the net
Thomas> involves several things, not just making it downloadable, but
Thomas> also advertising it,
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> It's not a special extra distinction, it's part of figuring out what
Thomas> it counts as to distribute a thing. If you put a big composite thing
Thomas> on a download site, whether it's one thing or a bunch of things is
T
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:13:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with this statement.
Debian advertises a freely redistrib
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96, 99 (1885). See also USC Title 17,
> section 507
>
> * (b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the
>provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years
>after the cl
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html
>
> Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote:
>
> A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is
>unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial.
>
> _Wanlas
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know a Randroid might think all lawyers are the same, but amazingly,
> > they are not.
>
> Ahhh! Out of logical refutation, you fall to the last refuge of the
> incompetent: personal attacks.
Um, your the one who launched personal attacks against peop
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > First of all, knowledge is not that of the actors, but of the "reasonable
> > man". The .deb archive standard contents were decided on when Debian was
> > still a FSF project, and they certainly haven't been
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
> > off the ground ATM. Compromising around a lawyer is like bleeding around
> > a shark: you don't do it twice.
>
> I have no idea wh
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, knowledge is not that of the actors, but of the "reasonable
> man". The .deb archive standard contents were decided on when Debian was
> still a FSF project, and they certainly haven't been modified to remove
> the license after the separation
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that
> > always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct
> > implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
> off the ground ATM. Compromising around a lawyer is like bleeding around
> a shark: you don't do it twice.
I have no idea what "ATM" means.
I know a Randroid might think all lawyers
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that
> always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct
> implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a changing playing
> field, take your choice.
It's qui
On 1 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is a nice way to explain it; perhaps even this is the best way to
> describe it. When rms gets back to me after talking to the lawyers,
> I'll suggest it.
Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
off the ground AT
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Failure to zealously prosecute one's every possible avenue of recourse in
> enforcing one's own copyright is not an offense under U.S. law, nor, as far
> as I know, anywhere else.
However, it is the case that failure to prosecute a copyright
violatio
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > Negligence is also a crime.
>
> Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
> exi
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> Negligence is also a crime.
Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
exists within specific legal contexts, typically those assoc
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> Negligence is also a crime. The FSF is violating the GPL when they
> make binaries such as /bin/ls downloadable without the downloading of
> the GPL. Negligence is no excuse.
Nothing
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:45:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch of pieces
> up on a web site, the question of whether you intend to distribute
> the pieces or only the combined whole is a question of what your
> intention is. One
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *Sigh*. No, the FSF is not the enemy. I think that my
> arguments point out, though, that a modicum of common sense would be
> most welcome in this frenzy of zealous and nitpicking attention to
> the fine print; and point out the these are im
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:45:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where in the GPL does it make a distinction??
> The GPL speaks of what you distribute. When you put a bunch of pieces
> up on a web site, the question of whether you intend to dist
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
> Thomas> individual binaries on ftp.gnu.org in that way for download.
>
> Thomas> Debian advertises ind
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:09:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Strawman. Tell me how your argument differes from me
> > > downloading ftp://ftp.gnu.org/bin/ls and not getting the GPL.
> >
> > One way that it certainly matters is that nob
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When the FSF starts playing by these rulkes, perhaps we shall
>> have the basis of a discussion.
Thomas> You seem to be regarding the FSF as the enemy here, and I think that'
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
Thomas> individual binaries on ftp.gnu.org in that way for download.
Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
I
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001201 22:07]:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
> > (headers?)
>
> I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of GPL (or,
> for that matter, any
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:09:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Strawman. Tell me how your argument differes from me
> > downloading ftp://ftp.gnu.org/bin/ls and not getting the GPL.
>
> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
> individual binaries on ftp.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the FSF starts playing by these rulkes, perhaps we shall
> have the basis of a discussion.
You seem to be regarding the FSF as the enemy here, and I think that's
unlikely to help.
The issue is about the downloading of advertised things,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If
> we
> Thomas> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
> Thomas> there wo
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We advertise in various
Thomas> ways individual .debs. It is true that we only *support* their use on
Thomas> Debian systems, which can be relied on to have GPL copies. But the
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
>> GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
>> whatever punishment you choose. But their
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> So the FSF needs to make sure that friends in the free software
Thomas> community play by the rules, even if the danger isn't so high, because
Thomas> otherwise our enemies might start ignoring the rules, and claiming the
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
Thomas> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
Thomas> there would probably be no issue here.
Strawman. Tell me h
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Reread my mail. Then realize that the GPL explicitly demands it.
>
> I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case.
Do you seriously believe that Debian (or anyone) can ignore the
provisions of the GPL that it finds inconvenient?
I think this boils down to one issue with only one solution that would satisfy
RMS:
Including a copy of the GPL in every single .deb
Linking to the GPL, assuming the all Debian users have copies of the GPL (which
they should/do), and claiming that all other systems that try and use .d
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:04:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
> there would probably be no issue here.
I quote from the GPL here (section 3):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, section 3 says the executable code must be distributed under the
> terms of sections 1 and 2, but sections 1 and 2 don't explicitely mention
> a requirement to distribute the GPL with executable code. Also, nowhere in
> the preamble does it state that the word 'Pro
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
> out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
> nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
> then be left without know
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is a) not supported, really
> b) not what we distribute.
> We distribute a system. Our policy governs our system (debian-policy
> is not relevant to a non debian system).
We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
> GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
> whatever punishment you choose. But their trnagressions do not belong
> on debian policy.
We do, in fact, mak
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Except that tools like alien do not enforce or care about the
> Thomas> dependency in any way.
>
> What does that have to do with debian policy?
Nothing, but it has
Nobody seems to have picked up the simple fact that the GPL does not
explicitly state 'you must distribute this license with executable code'.
What it does is state 'you must distribute executable code with the
complete source code, an offer for the complete source code, or the offer
you got for
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Rando Christensen wrote:
> This is nearly 10 years later. Nine and a half since gplv2. The world has
> changed a little bit, on that subject.
Ay, therein lies the rub! Isn't nine years a little late in the game to
go changing the rules? Had this been a software patent issu
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
> (headers?)
I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of GPL (or,
for that matter, any other common license) is sent on every connection...
Would a
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
>
> But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
> out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
> nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
> then be left without knowle
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rando> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
> Rando> from us,
>
> This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
> distribute alienated rpms. The pe
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> > The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
> > us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
> > the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
> > circumstance, which makes us be violating the g
>>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rando> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
Rando> from us,
This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
distribute alienated rpms. The person at fault, if indeed there is
someone at fault,
> On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > So tell us something we do not already know. Can we not refuse
> > to accept the validity of that argument?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rando Christensen) wrote:
> Sure we can. I say, if RMS wants to banter and bicker and bitch
> and moan about it, instea
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
