* Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Package name: musicxml
* URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
* License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public License 1.02
This license is unfamiliar to me (which may be more my problem than its :)
). It might
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider minor?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In the context of GPL compatability [which I think the
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:17:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction
between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of
such projects (which all works licensed under the GNU GPL
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:12:51AM -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote:
I do not consider this to go much further than that. The intention is
imho the one DFSG4 tries to carter for. The author wants:
a) derivatives being detectable as such.
b) derivatives have to keep out of xinetd's namespace. He
Hello,
I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it, since
i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml package. And
i wonder if it will come to happen that you will all
1) The FSF list the QPL as a free software license, despite it being in
violation of You should also have the freedom to make modifications and
use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be
required to
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can
be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a
package. Maybe
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Package name: musicxml
* URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
* License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public License 1.02
This license is
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:24:12PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
The litmus test here is a significant amount of functionality, not
will refuse to work at all without it, although that's a fairly good
description of a
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:01:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it, since
i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:08:06AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I think every program in Debian is held to the standard of being useful.
Please, s/is held/should be held/.
If you're like me, you should fear the counterexamples that could be
brought to the fore.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone packaged
any of the free IWADs?
I really don't know.
Perhaps no DD has enough time to package two files
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:49:03AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
Okay, I'm forwarding what Jesse and BestPractical's lawyer have put
together as a replacement appendage to the GPL in their licence.
[...]
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
|
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 wouldn't
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
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
other acceptable? The
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
Whosoever compares one's opposition in a discussion to indulging in
masturbation
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
patented
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
through various Tests. Some of them make sense, some of them are
just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
specific software!). The
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:15:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's far too much navel-gazing going on here...
I don't think that observation helps.
There does
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The GPL makes it illegal for me to provide copies of GPLed source to
others in hostile patent environments. That's certainly hurting people
we want to care about.
In that circumstance, *patents* are hurting people, not the GPL.
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:05:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why is You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries
not equally objectionable from this point of view?
It's a restriction whose benefits to free software are believed to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok. Why do we consider this worse than the GPL's requirement that source
be distributed with binaries? A pragmatic disident isn't going to hand
out source to people that he wants to run the software - there's more of
a risk of it
On 2004-07-14 03:12:27 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The DFSG FAQ does
partially address this issue for the most widely-referenced issues,
but
slightly less common issues often receive a go read the archives
response, which is sometimes harsher than necessary.
Both the FAQ
Hi,
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
As of this license, modification is not allowed. How is modification
to be interpreted. Can, for example, .dekstop files be modified? What
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:48:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* right to not have to share
modifications; the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
rights of the copyright holder to see my
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-13 23:05:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can
avoid
this by releasing the code to the general public. [...]
Can 6c be avoided entirely by the simple hack of a momentary
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
Why not? Again, what practical
On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you are going to ignore constant factors, then you might
as well say that both approaches will require O(n) summaries.
As far as I can tell, -legal only gets asked about a few packages
under any licence, so the appeal to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
Whosoever compares one's opposition in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
I still don't see how this is any less of a
On 2004-07-14 04:39:29 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] Having a general case
to work from seems superior than working from just another package
summary, which may have various special-case differences of its own.
In reality, I suspect that the separate license analysis
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
Interestingly, the new version of the Social Contract[1] seems to give us
less latitude than the original
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sean Kellogg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040713 10:55]:
With great respect to the 95% of the world population that does not live
within the US... the great majority of the world does operate under laws
derived from the common law system, which is embodied within the
SKYPE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This End User License Agreement (Agreement) constitutes a valid and
binding agreement between Skype Software S.A. (Skype) and you
(you, or your) for the use of the Skype Software, Network and
Services, as those terms are defined
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the conditions
| that you (i) do not
On 2004-07-14 08:40:47 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] i know i will again get flamed for this. Especially the
way Overfiend and co have treatened me in the past.
[...] and i fear that a solution to this will happen days before the
sarge release, and i asked to take actions,
* Branden Robinson:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
software without reason. I doubt that the test du jour can
* Branden Robinson:
Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
another.
Which of these are patent infringement allegations
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:26:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
What's silly or unrealistic about it? The totalitarian state in
question is the People's Republic of China. The original
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:20:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring hammering their web server?
I don't think it's practical to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:41:31PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The opinions of debian-legal consist of the opinions of all those
developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
a closed list. If the
* Øystein Gisnås:
I'm not sure what you refer to as notification, but if it's writing an
email to them, that shouldn't be a problem since contacting the author
is part of the packaging process in any case.
Each mirror admin would have to contact them individually because most
mirrors are not
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
another.
Which of
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] your funny fee one, and I don't think that's
going to fly with a wider audience.
Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
Because it only terminates if you refust to comply with it, or if you
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
It makes a huge difference.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an
attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.
How so?
Summaries hereto seem to restate views without many
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only way that this could realistically be defined as a fee is in a
narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
legal sense - it's written to be read
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 *other*
Florian Weimer wrote:
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
they're effectively arbitrary - they haven't been
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
choice of *law* clause looks like this:
This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California.
A choice of venue clause does something
Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
that such a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
Did you mean 9A(b)? Any requirement for sending source
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it,
since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
package. And i wonder if it will come to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
non-free licenses for free ones. The patent
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
provide. There's a practical difference.
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
I'm not
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
We accept this as free for
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than the
GPL's provisions.
The dissident test is
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm wondering if any of the frequent -legal posters would mind helping
with a review of my proposed Jabberd2 packages. There was some concern
over the original package and the fact that a GPL'd work was linked
against OpenSSL. I understand this
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
| Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the
| copyright holder for those
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't! That is an intrinsic
reason!
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
You should not need a technical workaround for a
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
network, but to contact the author, he
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the
recipient. You claim this is not a fee.
I
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
The Skype Software and the Services are not intended for use by or
availability to persons under the age limit of any jurisdiction
which restricts the use of Internet-based applications and services
according to age. IF YOU RESIDE IN SUCH A
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than
R at es - are rising! Act now and lock in these l
ow rat
e s.C a sh out 10o % of your home. Quickly get c a
sh in 5 days.
Zero income documentation and No F IC0 scoring.
Take advantagHe
today P
ifcaip? mjrddzg wavxzvtl? Ohccdb nvvnswa, ngbbft zyreh
Ukpmfb qgjqwya - xiyug ofctbx? pnrvup
* 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
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 02:55]:
Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up
their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are
applied to the
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
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 wouldn't
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040714 19:01]:
Nor does the QPL. It only allows distribution of binaries if you provide
source upstream - it doesn't require the source to be distributed
otherwise. The only difference between the QPL and the GPL in this
respect is who the source is
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in documentation?
mike
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:24:14 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone
packaged any of the free IWADs?
I really
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:45:02PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, MIT, usual stack.
How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark
rights in
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:37:46 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
We must also collect some sort of license database, so as we can say
this package is solely under the L license, hence it cannot be
DFSG-free for sure.
What does this do that a database of summaries indexed by licence
wouldn't?
Nothing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
possible to provide those
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:48:53PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm wondering if any of the frequent -legal posters would mind helping
with a review of my proposed Jabberd2 packages. There was some concern
over the original package and the
On 2004-07-14 22:31:12 +0100 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] in that case it seems (at least to me) a bit weird
if we focused on *one* particular package, rather than on the license
L
itself.
If we can find a typical case, there might be little practical
difference. It just
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:17:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of The copyright
holder may terminate this license at any time discriminate against? How
Any and all fields of endeavour, depending on the licensor's mood. It can
even change
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
We've
On 2004-07-14 23:04:20 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:45 -0400, Mike Olson wrote:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
Given debian-legal's current trend, none are safe ... :o)
Roll up! Roll up! Sniper rifles for
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring
Steve Langasek wrote:
If the mplayer upstream developers are controlled by evil alien
cephalopods is a procedurally valid reason to keep a package out of
Debian, than so is the Chinese dissident test.
I strongly hope that that is not the only reason MPlayer has not been
accepted into Debian
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:09:11PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
Jabberd2 is indeed licensed under the GPLv2, but the concern I have is
over the various linkings of the package. The packages depended on by
the various versions of the Jabberd2 builds are:
libc6
libidn11
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
