Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:49:27PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:24 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: [...] You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of free software, as well as guidance regarding the *legality* of particular combinations of works. You using the list as a soapbox for your opinions about licenses that you think Debian *shouldn't* accept is an abuse of the list. Sorry, but I think I am *not* abusing this list by just expressing my own opinions on the acceptability of licenses. Expressing them is fine. Repeating them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ... is unnecessary. It worked for Cato the Elder: Carthago delenda est Really, I did not want to start a flame war. I just wnated to know if it would be possible to combine two incompatible licences, if they were never combined in a program, because one is read in as data. I believe I have my answer=It is ok. Thank You I now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war. :-) Really, by now the regulars here all know what you think about various licenses and, frankly, we don't care to hear about it any more. Please try and find something more constructive to do. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelli...@blackpatchpanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117 --- Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it. Edward Snowden signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 01/09/13 18:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote: //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) Well, I'm a DD too, I don't back that sort of disrespectful, sarcastic, uncollaborative, overlong rant and yes, lurkers support me by email too! I'll accept that the link to 2008 wasn't current, but it's still the current situation as far as I know. I didn't realise from http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org that the request was only interested in the last quarter-year. Maybe phrasing it more explicitly than still would have helped get better replies with relevant references. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224697f.5060...@phonecoop.coop
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, MJ Ray wrote: On 01/09/13 18:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote: //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) Well, I'm a DD too, I don't back that sort of disrespectful, sarcastic, uncollaborative, overlong rant and yes, lurkers support me by email too! Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind people of Enrico Zini's Debian Community Guidelines which gives some tips for effective and constructive communication. http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gris6rgp-chvveihkbe1yzdwdogtunv+a3mzfxfwr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
Paul Wise pabs at debian.org writes: Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing. I’ve heard that Francesco is the reason people are considering unsubscribing from this list. Yes, it’s *that* bad. I do *not* think we should keep the velvet gloves on every time – but if you want to do that, feel free to, just ignore me. (And, for the record, I did try to make constructive suggestions how Francesco can try to get his point across better.) Sorry I’m brutally honest. And yes, I stand by my actions. And, tbh, if this is official (someone finally says something against a long-standing annoyment, to the rejoicing of other people including DDs who suffered under said annoyment, only to be flamed by people who have failed to contribute so far) I can understand unsubscribing. It’s “only” Debian that suffers. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130902t131005-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 02/09/13 12:14, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Wise pabs at debian.org writes: Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing. I think there's a few mails in the archive from me on those lines, but I usually contact people off-list with such specific criticisms. Basically, I feel it's a minor problem because Francesco seems polite if repetitive - although I think this thread started because someone doesn't follow the list closely, so I'm not sure if that got noticed! I’ve heard that Francesco is the reason people are considering unsubscribing from this list. Yes, it’s *that* bad. [...] Well, we hear things like that every time someone doesn't agree about whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png There are solutions short of unsubscribing, such as filtering, if you really cannot stand to hear certain voices. So far, I think I've filtered three people out during 10 years. The conduct on this list has improved over time, but it could always improve further, of course. (And, for the record, I did try to make constructive suggestions how Francesco can try to get his point across better.) I noticed a suggestion that Francesco should work to become a DD because he's not even a Debian Developer! which seems a bit of a throwback to the non-package-maintaining contributors not welcomed dark ages. Even as someone in it, I feel most of the project is moving beyond a keyring-cabal mentality. I also noticed a suggestion that Francesco should shut up and then try to convince the project about the problems with the AGPL from within(huh?), which seemed rather absurdly destructive to me: how does someone convince others without explaining the problems? Both of those were in close proximity to some quite sharp words. Were there other suggestions I didn't notice? If not, I think we may have different understandings of constructive. Sorry I’m brutally honest. And yes, I stand by my actions. No need to be sorry about honesty: please be sorry for not being polite and collaborative, or at least not being clear. And, tbh, if this is official (someone finally says something against a long-standing annoyment, to the rejoicing of other people including DDs who suffered under said annoyment, only to be flamed by people who have failed to contribute so far) I can understand unsubscribing. It’s “only” Debian that suffers. I'm sorry that you feel flamed. That was not my intent. I regret that my debian contributions over recent years have been smaller than I'd like, for various reasons mostly related to working on other projects, but I feel pabs (maintains over thirty packages, does QA uploads and NMUs, sponsors over forty more) has contributed well, so listen to pabs if that's your criteria. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224a295.1080...@phonecoop.coop
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
Ben Finney dijo [Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:56:59AM +1000]: Really, by now the regulars here all know what you think about various licenses and, frankly, we don't care to hear about it any more. Is this forum only for the regulars, then? Much of the value would, IMO, be for newcomers raising an issue here even if regulars have gone over it many times. I think making it clear to newcomers that there is not consensus about the DFSG-free status of some set of licenses, in the context of a query about exactly that, is relevant each time. But when an issue becomes such a FAQ (or FRT - Frequently Repeated Topic), more efficient ways should be found. For example, we could request the listmasters to add this information as a (short, one-line) disclaimer to every post to the list, together with the instructions on how to subscribe / unsubscribe. Excess repetition makes many of us regulars pay less attention to the topics. I'll mention this specific example, trying not to make it into an ad-hominem: Francesco has a *great* license comprehension and comparison skill, much greater than mine, and I appreciate reading his messages when I am starting, or have time, or am in a good mood. But I know there is a very high probability his mails will include a Well, but remember I don't think any CC licenses are as good as GPLv2! paragraph. So, Francesco: I will also tune in with Steve's request. I think your point would be better driven if not constantly repeated. And you would find this crowd much more likely to accept your ideas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130902150601.ga118...@gwolf.org
[OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes: Well, we hear things like that every time someone doesn't agree about In this case I talked with other DDs on IRC. whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png You know that l.d.o is not the only interface to those lists, right? I noticed a suggestion that Francesco should work to become a DD because he's not even a Debian Developer! which seems a bit of a throwback to the non-package-maintaining contributors not welcomed dark ages. Even DD does no longer equal “maintaining packages” (I notice we do not have a short term for “nōn-packaging project member” because DM is already used for packaging nōn-members). And I really meant DD as in “project member” here. I also noticed a suggestion that Francesco should shut up and then try to convince the project about the problems with the AGPL from within(huh?), which seemed rather absurdly destructive to me: how does someone convince others without explaining the problems? I never said he shouldn’t explain the problems. I merely suggested he explain it in places where they can be addressed instead of in the place where Debian contributors go when they want advice on the project’s position on something, or sth. like that. Maybe this explains my reasoning better? If it does, EOT from me. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130902t222406-...@post.gmane.org
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
Dear Listmasters, Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list. However, he also consistently, repeatedly uses the list to tell people about his personal positions on licenses where these disagree with the position taken on behalf of the project by the Debian ftp team. He has done this for years, and for years people (including myself) have been asking him to stop. Francesco Poli is not a Debian Developer. His refusal to stop using debian-legal as a soapbox for telling everyone who asks a question about licenses about how he thinks the ftpmasters are wrong is an abuse of this list which makes the list significantly less useful for its *intended* purpose of examining new licenses, promulgating license information to new packagers and upstreams, and discussing questions of the overall legality of software in Debian. By making his disagreement with the ftpmasters the subject of any thread in which the pertinent licenses are discussed, he sows confusion about the status of these licenses, whose status in Debian is otherwise not at all ambiguous. Since Francesco has made it clear that he has no intention to stop his abusive use of debian-legal (see below) or even recognize why his behavior is problematic, I am asking the listmasters to ban him from this mailing list. Francesco, if you want to get Debian to *change its position* on licenses where you think an error has been made, please start a discussion in an appropriate forum such as debian-project and Cc: the ftp team. debian-legal is not and never has been the place to get changes made to the policy for the ftp archive, and your continued use of the list for espousing your *personal opinion* on questions that have been settled *for years* from the project's perspective is actively harmful and must stop. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 03:46:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:37:24 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: [...] You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of free software, as well as guidance regarding the *legality* of particular combinations of works. You using the list as a soapbox for your opinions about licenses that you think Debian *shouldn't* accept is an abuse of the list. Sorry, but I think I am *not* abusing this list by just expressing my own opinions on the acceptability of licenses. The description of this list says [1]: Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ There cannot be *any* discussions, if, for each given topic, only *one* opinion is allowed to be expressed, and any other dissenting opinion is banned. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
