On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 18:59, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:12:44PM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
exchange for not being sued by
[Rob: I'm going to keep you Cc:'ed since I think you're not subscribed
to -legal, but in the future, please set MFT if you want to be
Cc:'ed.]
To allow for the most efficient repeat of history, almost all of these
issues have been dealt with before:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent infringment.
Note that this isn't a license to the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In its current form, I think there'd be few people who would accept the
RPSL as DFSG-free. If you terminated patent grants rather than the
copyright license, I think there'd be a sizable proportion of developers
who would accept it as DFSG-free.
See also
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it's critical that I have permission to sell hardcopies of manuals;
the lack of Debian infrastructure for that doesn't make it any less
important.
(Whether or not this is an issue with using the GPL for manuals, I have
no idea.)
It isn't a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
Ok this is my third and last tentative to summarize this whole mess, and i
would ask any participant here to ask himself if he is ready to defend its
opinion before a judge before posting, and to ask himself if he honestly
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markuprev=502
That's great news!
I'm still confused by section 6 of the modified QPL:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
requirements:
a. You must
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:20:31AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:24:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm still confused by section 6 of the modified QPL:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software. These items, when
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We should concentrate on the real problems, namely the clause of
venue and QPL 6c, which i have ground to believe will be no problem
for upstream anymore, altough i have no official answer yet, and QPL
3b, which still remains
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
However, linking a work that uses the Library with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a work that uses the
library. The executable
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 02:29, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point,
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is
the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them?
Think about the reverse situation, where a free
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is
the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them?
Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer
using software under the RPSL discovers that
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is
the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them?
Think about
(intentional thread break)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:48:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
RPSL 12.6 requires a fee for distribution, violating DFSG 1.
I'm fairly certain that there isn't clear consensus on this.
Regardless of whether choice of venue is a fee, the only people I've
seen who
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:09:48PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I had thought from previous GPL discussions that distribute the source
and let users link it was not a reasonable way to sidestep license
compatibility issues, because the source was still a derived work. Does
this mean
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is
the freedom to drag an
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:02:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(intentional thread break)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:48:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
RPSL 12.6 requires a fee for distribution, violating DFSG 1.
I'm fairly certain that there isn't clear consensus on this.
Sven Luther writes:
Well, i think if the question would be if the choice of venue consitutes a
fee, and thus violate DFSG 1, or is not a fee and thus either needs a new DFSG
entry, or violate DFSG 5 by discriminating against licence violators far away
from the chosen venue, then you would
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the
tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any
different?
Copyright law generally gives you the permission to use software that
you have legally obtained. If you
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Keeping score isn't a good way to think about this. There are people who
aren't
yet decided on the issue and are mute (myself included there) as well as the
vast majority of DD's who I'd bet are not even aware of the issue. This
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
This sort
of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG is
exactly what's caused so much ire within the rest of the project towards this
list.
No, firstly (a) that's just a vocal minority, and (b) it's
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:05:10PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Well, i think if the question would be if the choice of venue consitutes a
fee, and thus violate DFSG 1, or is not a fee and thus either needs a new
DFSG
entry, or violate DFSG 5 by discriminating
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:58:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Regardless of whether choice of venue is a fee, the only people I've
seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex
Spoon and Sven Luther.
So, there is : 4 against 15, or rhougly 21 % of people who think
Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 07:35:52AM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
Package: atmel-firmware
Severity: serious
The following files aren't either .rom files or .h files as required by the
upstream license.
images/*.bin
images.usb/*.bin
The files are
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:02:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(intentional thread break)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:48:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
RPSL 12.6 requires a fee for distribution, violating DFSG 1.
I'm fairly certain that there isn't clear consensus on this.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer
using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he
holds. Why should his legitimate
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS,
contributory infringement).
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of
copyright notices.
That still isn't free. It must be permitted to remove any given
notice, as long as a correct one is added elsewhere.
Consider
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:20:39PM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
[...]
Try this Gedanken-experiment: would you still consider the license to be
violated of the files were named *.rom in the package and then renamed
as *.bin by the postinst script? If so why do you think that a slightly
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:16:34PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
That would sort out 'distribution', but the license says 'usage' must be
done as *.rom. However, then we wouldn't be violating upstream license since
it is up to the user to illegaly use the package.
If the only possible use of the
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:02:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not trying to say we outnumber you, so be quiet, or anything that silly,
nor am I trying to stop discussion about it. I just feel he's overstating
the disagreement.
I'm fairly certain that there isn't clear consensus on this.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:08:51PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I'm fairly certain that there isn't clear consensus on this. is an
overstatement? Sounds pretty benign to me. Again, keeping score of a few
active
-legal participants isn't enough to claim clear consensus for the whole
project
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
people *how* to violate
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
of d-legal (who can't be bothered to state their opinion and its rationale),
so
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying
use this to get around the GPL certainly would not be.
Do you think there's a
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:58:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Regardless of whether choice of venue is a fee, the only people I've
seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex
Spoon and Sven Luther.
So, there is : 4 against 15, or rhougly 21 %
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 10:31:41PM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
The license certainly doesn't say that usage must be done a *.rom, it
says that use is permitted provided that _redistribution_ is done as
header files or binary image files (and the copyright notices are
included) Regardless
On 2004-07-24 12:13:08 +0100 Parsons, Drew
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After debian-legal goes to all the trouble of determining whether some
licence is free or not, it would be useful for their decision to be
displayed, so others can easily see the decision later, without
having to
waste time
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
of d-legal (who
On 2004-07-26 18:02:52 +0100 Thomas Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] You're replies don't really help me, so if someone
finds the time to give me a short answer what I should do, then I
would
be happy. [...]
Put it somewhere other than main unless the licence is fixed.
--
MJR/slef
On 2004-07-27 11:13:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
See also the IBM Public License, Version 1.0, which GNU considers to
be free: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Are we sure that follows DFSG yet? FSF have been a little patchy about
broad software patent
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markuprev=502
Changes are :
a) Modified clause 3a
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:29:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-27 11:13:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
See also the IBM Public License, Version 1.0, which GNU considers to
be free: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Are we sure that follows DFSG
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:58:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying
use this to get around
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DD's
have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
that's
grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many
would be surprised when a license is declared non-free because of
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
libraries (.a) it links against.
Sure
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:02:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
that there's a silent
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DD's
have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
that's
grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:43:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have
nothing to
fear from
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
You sound like you don't actually want to discuss these things, despite
previously claiming that you do. Make up your mind. I'm not saying consult the
rest of the project on every little decision, but applying dogmatic
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:43:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
interpretations are shared by
57 matches
Mail list logo
