On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded
from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license. And while some of the
It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters.
by Corel to their licenses, I am
AJ:
If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
licenses. It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here.
infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
will make it harder for people to find things like gimp-nonfree (which
is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
completely free--unless you live in the drain-bamaged US where LZW is
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
will make it harder for people to find things like gimp-nonfree (which
is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:33:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
AJ:
If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:37:02PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law (Corel is a Canadian company)
that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
with a minor.
So, have they broken that one
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
Peter
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:45:55 -0500
From: Feedback Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Free Download End User
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
What sort of obligation?
To comply with the licenses of our software.
It'd be nice if they'd get around to contributing all their enhancements
back to Debian. That's a bit tricky since new-maintainers doesn't seem to
have reopened yet, and it
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?
You can't contract with a minor in the U.S.
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:
I'm not communicating my point clearly.
What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to
On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list. I
dunno how we'd handle subscription,
I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
Perens got leaked to Slashdot. I see part of the problem that the
news people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
skimming the mailinglists as a substitute for timely information from the
Debian
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John
Gal
t writes:
I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
Perens got leaked to Slashdot. I see part of the problem that the
news people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
skimming the mailinglists as a
I didn't traced this mailing list, yet.
Where can I find informations about QT/KDE license incompatibility?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] more /usr/doc/libqt1g/copyright
[...]
You accept this license.
Your software does not require modifications to Qt Free Edition.
You satisfy ONE of the
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Caspian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
In reference to:
I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is
interested in making a completely, utterly free
software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that prohibits
putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of
nonsense they've been pulling,
I wrote:
If
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 07:28:06AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
Maybe at this point, what's really needed is something -stricter- than the
GPL. Companies are already starting to walk all over the spirit-- if not
the letter-- of the GPL...just one idea, eh?
The strictiest still-DFSG-compatible licence
I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in freedom talk,
as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
Crap like
On Dec 02, Caspian wrote:
Something-- SOMETHING-- must be done, or in five to ten years the Linux
(and I do say Linux here, since it will no longer be GNU/Linux)
The GNU/Linux term has relatively little currency outside Debian.
It never has been GNU/Linux to more than a few people. I doubt you
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
in some countries should not be treated like programs
restricted by their authors.
gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
package.
LZW is
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Don Marti wrote:
But if you must have a category for free software to create a GIF,
neither non-us nor non-free seems to apply.
What of the sort of thing that was used in the older (pre-PNG) releases of
GD? I.e. code that generates GIF files that an ordinary GIF viewer can
It'd be nice if they'd send their lawyers to this list so that they can
explain wtf is going on, and give us some helpful comments without having
to add `IANAL' or `I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice' like the
rest of us do.
I'll be posting a note from our legal department here in a
While we clearly won't agree on philosophical grounds, perhaps we're not as far
apart as you might think. Your philosophical concerns are well stated here and
I'd
like to respond to some of your concerns as they pertain to Corel.
Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
As a
I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
run things by us.
Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which
And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.
Yes, keeping tabs on slashdot flame wars isn't generally how I like to spend my
days.
It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list. I
dunno how we'd handle
The following is a note from our legal department on the discussion of
the minor clause in the Corel Linux EULA. I hope it clarifies why the
EULA is the way it is and why we believe it actually has positive value
for free software developers.
Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux
Erich Forler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the =93Minor=94 clause a violation of the GPL?
Some commentators have suggested that by requiring persons to certify
that they are not a minor, or to have a parent or legal guardian agree
to the terms to the GPL on their behalf, Corel has changed
Why are you using a fake email address in your headers?
At Corel, the mailing lists get filtered into a newsgroups which makes them
easier to manage and to track topic threads. The headers are put on by the
system which does the translation from newsgroup back to the mailing list. I
respond to a
Peter S Galbraith writes:
I wrote:
If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it
under a different license. How could you then use `a license
that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort
of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it?
Erich Forler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to be effective, however, the contract must be binding upon the
persons who enter into it. In some jurisdictions, contracts entered into
by minors are deemed by law to be not binding upon them or to be
voidable at the option of the minor. As a
30 matches
Mail list logo
