Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:24:42 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > [...] I try to approach its copyright holders and > > persuade them to change license. > > In order to be more credible when I point out the issues that makes > > a license non-free [...] > > Here's the flip.

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:51:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Often licences have or do not have specifics in how they're being > applied to software. In our favourite furry Firefox case, there is > stuff in the package not under the same licence as the rest. That's just a case of multiple licenses, t

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:45:45AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even > > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than > > > licenses with

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:18:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (even > > the MIT license), but that's usually the rare exception. Other than > > licenses with "options" (which essentially makes them multiple licenses), > > and ot

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences > > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free > > or non-free software without too much ef

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:24:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > I've found when making my licence notes that there are licences > with grey areas, licences which could be used for either free > or non-free software without too much effort. I know that any license can be "interpreted" in a non-free way (

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be everything to everyone and that's why they don't work? Francesco Poli wrote: > When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e. > program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its > (DFSG-)freeness. [...

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:12:58 + MJ Ray wrote: > Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had > vanished - Francesco Poli > So did I. > > Thanks for that You are welcome! :) > and the comments off-list. What would the period > summaries have done to help you with the

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period > summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you They'd have helped me either keep up with what's going on without actually looking at the list or at lea

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

MJ Ray wrote: > Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had > vanished - > Francesco Poli > So did I. > > Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period > summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you > mean the long licence summari

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

Mark Brown > > For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished - Francesco Poli > So did I. Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you mean the long licence summaries? What would they have don

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:32:44 + Mark Brown wrote: > > I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained > > yet. I'm not used to complain if a volunteer seems to not have enough time to get a job done... (unless he/she has promised to do so, but this is not the case now IIRC).

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:29:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained yet. > I don't think that communicating what -legal is discussing is very > interesting to most debian people. I am keeping notes for my own sake at For what it's worth I'd

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Your messages suggested that you'd review "after a few months" > > mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good > > opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned > > out like you imagined? > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I thin

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-19 15:10]: > > Last time I suggested that -legal should engage in more active > > arbitration with upstream > > Where precisely did you make this suggestion? I had the discussion about the OLS in mind in which I asked whether anyone had tried talkin

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 23:52]: > Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal > review of licenses" suggested that "anyone can volunteer to > summarize a particular discussion, post a summary to -legal to get > the "ok" and then send it on" and that

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-24 02:25]: > Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above > snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian > Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the > facts, given that even after n

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]: > > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been > > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happe

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'll do this in the next day or so. It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached). I'll pass along whatever I learn. -- G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GN

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

[self-followup to add some information and make a correction] On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous > as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan. Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragr

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]: > > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been > > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happe

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:25:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > >> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the > >> park for releasing without Mozilla at the mome

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the >> park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't >> suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant. >

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On 2004-07-14 21:19:33 +0100 Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, I encouraged summarizing and documenting the findings of -legal about licenses [...] Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal review of licenses" suggeste

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical > > browsers *other* than Netscape, right? > > You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-12 02:46]: > IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been > formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen. It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I suggested that -legal should en

Re: GUADEC report

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:41:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Branden Robinson writes: > > This is interesting. Do you have any references where I [can] read > > more about it? > > The correct term is "copyright misuse". Google finds lots of hits. > Wikipedia: > > > Also worth looking at is m

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical > > > browsers *ot

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

> > You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the > > park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't > > suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant. > > We don't seem to fear the laughter of others when it comes to AMD64 > support. Just a guess here

Re: GUADEC report

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > 1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free; This simply isn't how some people in the Project think. The alternative approach is to assume that anything is DFSG-free until proven otherwise. Historical evidence shows that m

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical > > browsers *other* than Netscape, right? > > You're seriously suggesting that Debian wo

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

My overly clever rhetoric started an unintended quarrel with good free-software people who are my friends not my foes. I ask their pardon. A simpler statement from me would have sufficed. Branden said it better than I did. He wrote, > By adopting a milquetoast approach we do the > Mozilla Proj

Trademark misuse Was: Re: GUADEC report

Here is an interesting paper on trademark misuse: -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: GUADEC report

I wrote: > Attempting to use a copyright license to extend trademark rights beyond the > statutory ones may be copyright misuse. That could lead to the abuser > losing his copyright, his trademark, or both. Branden Robinson writes: > This is interesting. Do you have any references where I read m

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On 2004-07-12 15:53:45 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The flames that issue forth every time someone dares to downgrade or suggest temporarily ignoring a "foo is non-free" bug that came from -legal speak for themselves. If there are that many, I guess a lot of these are either n

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > In any case, the attitude that "kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary > thought" strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project > went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our > response

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-12 04:32:30 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license this late in the sarge release process is no small matter. It probably doesn't matter too much. debian-legal and [EMAIL PROTECTED] both seem not to move pa

handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:32:30PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > I never meant to imply that debian-legal was actually doing this, since I > don't > have any examples (in no small part because I haven't gone looking for them) > but rather that the post I replied to was demonstrating the kind of ar

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:32:24PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is > > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates > > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe

Re: GUADEC report

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:07:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be > nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people "beating > upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology". I never meant to imply

Re: GUADEC report

Matthew Garrett wrote: > I raised two main issues at the meeting itself: > > 1) The use of copyright law in an attempt to protect trademarks. This is > potentially going to be an issue for us, as it leads to artwork that we > can't distribute in main. This is also less than ideal for upstream >

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as > such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, > such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate > with the

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:09:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > "Confrontational" tends to be an excuse to avoid discussing the > issue. X-Oz is the last company I remember playing this game. It > generally takes the form of "We're giving you the software, so you > must accept our judgement of t

Re: GUADEC report (java-gnome)

Hi, On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:57, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > [...] The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that > > can't be run with free Java implementations. > > This is good news. Well done to GNOME. Note

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as such > have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, such > training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate with th

Re: GUADEC report

On 2004-07-07 02:41:27 +0100 Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do have a question on an individual package-by-package basis, who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG? I believe that, ultimately, ftpmaster are responsible for the archive. They listen to oth

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > > Some companies feel that various licenses were > > > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ... > > > > Maybe some companies should genuinely stop > > tryi

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > Some companies feel that various licenses were > > genuine efforts to be DFSG free ... > > Maybe some companies should genuinely stop > trying to invent new free licenses. Still, if > > (a) they feel that they absolutely mu

re: GUADEC report

Matthew wrote: > 2) The possibility that GNOME's adoptation of Java as an application > development language would result in software depending on a closed > JDK.The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that > can't be run with free Java implementations java-gnome has worked off

Re: GUADEC report

Matthew's report is interesting and appreciated. Some companies cannot seem to restrain themselves from stirring the mud in the license swamp, can they? Like three-year-old boys, they just love to stir that mud. > Some companies feel that various licenses were > genuine efforts to be DFSG free .

Re: GUADEC report

MJ Ray writes: > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe > the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on t

Re: GUADEC report

I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone, asking for cc if you need it. On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROT

Re: GUADEC report

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not > obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be > excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were > genuine efforts to be D

GUADEC report

I was present at the 2004 GUADEC (GNOME Users and Developers Europen Conference) in order to represent Debian on the GNOME advisory board (at the request of the DPL) and to talk to companies active in the Linux desktop community. Several things were brought up several times by different people: 1)