On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Some require it in the end-user documentation (Apache), which seems
stronger.
That's a problem, then.
The full clause:
3. The end-user documentation
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
/usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
This product includes software developed by the
Apache Software Foundation
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:38:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
change the wording of the last
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:28:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision
could get the
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the
Debian Project as asserting this is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who
* Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040608 09:14]:
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the
Debian Project as asserting this is wrong, and may be being deliberately
deceptive.
That was not what I meant to say. However, someone did suggest that
such a request
I'm pretty sure the following is at the very least non-free, but I
wanted to run it by here first because I don't want to waste any more
time trying to package this unless it can at least go in non-free. I
already had to close the ITP[1] once I discovered that some of the code
was lacking a
On 2004-06-08 08:14:13 +0100 Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] However, someone did suggest that
such a request would make the program non-free. [...]
Do you mean Josh Triplett? He accepted Lewis Jardine's correction. Why won't
you?
I understand that it could be
an
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
architecture, and not a legal issue.
As a technical measure, the circular dependency could be broken and
the alternative prebuild-world-in-source kludge eliminated by writing
an Oaklisp interpreter in another language (say, RnRS
This is not the first time that this has come up. Perhaps there could
be a FAQ at www.debian.org/legal?
Great idea.
Perhaps the draft FAQ I started could be moved?
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
(Just added this question to it.)
It is in pretty good shape, with contributions from
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
I guess I'm missing
Benjamin Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of
@ 08/06/2004 12:10 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free,
can't be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire
thing be under the terms
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
package it this way (/vide/ all the flam^W healthy discussions about
the
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the
Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite of licenses, with
a
@ 08/06/2004 12:58 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
package it this way (/vide/
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:58:57AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the GPL).
As to mpg123, what about mpg321 ??
I should also have
Andrew Suffield wrote:
No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
derivative work of starscream.
Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating
the source packages wouldn't help either?
m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the
Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
derivative work of starscream.
Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating
the source packages
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:58:04AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I had another idea, though. I've noticed a few packages in contrib don't
actually assemble the package until postinst... could I seperate gens
into gens (all the GPL code) and gens-nonfree (mpg123 and
Starscream), and have gens postinst call ld at install-time? The two
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
A search for the author's name turns up http://www.neillcorlett.com/ ,
which has a page http://www.neillcorlett.com/star/ about Starscream.
There is an email address on that site's contact page; is it
Andrew Suffield wrote:
A quick search of the Packages file reveals basilisk2, an emulator for
m68k macs. I know there are more m68k emulators out there, which
haven't been packaged.
Looking at Basalisk it says that it uses UAE's emu core for m68k...
sounds like it's worth looking into, but
@ 08/06/2004 13:58 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the
GPL). As to
Josh Triplett wrote:
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
A search for the author's name turns up http://www.neillcorlett.com/ ,
which has a page http://www.neillcorlett.com/star/ about Starscream.
There is an email address on that
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Searching for Starscream somehow managed to miss that page. I'll check
it out.
Eh, it's the same thing from before. Different addy, but just about the
same content. I'm going to look into replacing the m68k core. Probably
from UAE, since that's a pretty tested
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html :
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:42:12AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
source. It does not get around the GPL's
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
AS We've done these to death already, starting in 2003. They're
AS non-free. That won't change.
Ah. Well, could you respond to my points as to why I think they _are_
free? I disagree with the terms of the summary.
You
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The FSF's position here is well-known, but has some odd implications. For
instance, if you write code that requires Windows libraries, it is a
derivative
work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you from
distributing it.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The FSF's position here is well-known, but has some odd implications. For
instance, if you write code that requires Windows libraries, it is a
derivative
work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you from
@ 08/06/2004 14:48 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Searching for Starscream somehow managed to miss that page. I'll
check it out.
Eh, it's the same thing from before. Different addy, but just about
the same content. I'm going to look into replacing the m68k core.
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AS Beyond that I'm not personally inclined to analyse a license
AS which is clearly non-free for other reasons; it's
AS time-consuming.
No problem; I'm sure someone else will chime in. Thanks for your help
so far.
~ESP
--
Evan
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:00:21PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Also, note that the Linux kernel includes an explicit exception for
works that simply make system calls; without that exception, software
that uses any system call specific to Linux would most likely be a
derived work of the
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is. Creative Commons
revised their suite of licenses this year (from 1.0 to 2.0), and this
list was asked to provide comment:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
derivative of Windows?
Yes.
There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually
confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the
case of GPL libraries.
MR == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is.
MR It may be poorly timed but at least a debian user helped to
MR make it happen. Please praise Ben Francis and give him due
MR credit for getting your attention with
MR
(Please cc: me on replies)
The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
man pages because until recently the license prohibited
modification.
The latest version
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:03:38PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
derivative of Windows?
Yes.
There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually
confused,
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.
Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote:
The latest version (1.67, 20 May 2004) now allows
modification, so long as any conflicts with the standard
are clearly marked as such in the text.
This seems to be reasonable. It's also right up against the line - a
stronger
Hi all -
With the recent discussion about choice of venue, I was wondering about the
Mozilla license. Specifically, the Mozilla Public License v. 1.1 [1] seems to
contain a choice of venue clause in section 11:
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an
|
On 2004-06-09 00:12:02 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MR == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't SuperCite outgoing email. It is difficult to follow.
[...] I'm now
subscribed to debian-legal and I'll try to keep the lines of
communication open better.
I don't think
posted mailed
Evan Prodromou wrote:
snip
Making our organization's ideas known to Creative Commons could have
meant a better suite of licenses for the 2.0 release. Instead, the
opportunity was missed. As far as I know, the above-mentioned analysis
wasn't forwarded to Creative Commons before
Jim Marhaus wrote:
Hi all -
With the recent discussion about choice of venue, I was wondering about
the Mozilla license. Specifically, the Mozilla Public License v. 1.1 [1]
seems to contain a choice of venue clause in section 11:
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party
posted mailed
Andre Lehovich wrote:
(Please cc: me on replies)
The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
man pages because until recently the license
On 2004-06-09 01:56:18 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
3) As for the trademark clause, I agree that the trademark
requirement
is burdensome.
This isn't supposed to be an actual part of the license, according to
the
source code for the web page; [...]
I missed that. I'm not
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.
Do any SA/NC/ND
Evan Prodroumou wrote:
On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to
get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions
of the CC licenses.
Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?...
The trademark issue appears to be an issue solely with the web
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:30:09PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an
| entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
America,
| any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the
57 matches
Mail list logo
