Evan Prodromou wrote:
Here's the poop, in a nutshell: after a few months of back-and-forths,
we worked out a draft license that the working group felt was compatible
with the DFSG. CC hopes to apply the changes to the upcoming CC 3.0
license suite draft, and that version will be available for
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:06:35AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how those messages give you the impression that this license
is not GPL-compatible. The license is in fact a BSD license, sans
advertising clause, and is thus GPL-compatible.
Yes, this is 3 clause BSD variant =
Walter Landry wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating
between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible.
I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus
On 12/30/05, Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I would like to know if it is possible to reditribute the Oracle Instant
Client in Debian's non-free archive.
...
This is old, but I didn't see any responses to this. So I'll spell out what
I think is the obvious answer:
This is
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:44:21 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
This does raise another interesting point: there are laws in some
jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect
privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It
would be problematic if this clause
[Please cc to me and Gilles]
Hi,
digikam developers would like to use Adobes XMP standard and
reference implementation to handle image meta data.
http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
They would like to make sure that the license is okay with debian
before they start using it. If
You may not modify the Documentation.
Means the docs are non-free.
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION. This Agreement is governed by the statutes
and laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law
principles thereof. If any part of this Agreement is found void and
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
You may not modify the Documentation.
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
it actually fails DFSG#3.
[...]
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION.
[...]
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:30:32 +0100 Achim Bohnet wrote:
You may not modify the Documentation.
As already pointed out by Andrew Donnellan, Documentation is non-free:
it actually fails DFSG#3.
[...]
6. GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION.
Raul Miller writes:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
Why do you say that?
You pretty much answered your
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced
Raul Miller writes:
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
Why do you say that?
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
live far away from Santa Clara County, California, USA and thus fail
DFSG#5. Those people can be forced to travel around the planet in order
to defend themselves in a
If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading claims).
The other argument is that even without this
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:08:34AM +0400, olive wrote:
If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non-
Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright
holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the
confusion (and misleading
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
people.
It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other people
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:03AM +0400, olive wrote:
olive
olive This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
olive debian-legal contributors (including me...).
olive
olive In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people who
olive live far away from Santa Clara
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:32:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
As long as the DFSG is not changed the license remains
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate* venue. If
Glenn California really is the appropriate venue for the suit, as determined
Glenn by the law, then that's fine. If the appropriate venue is Massachusetts,
25 matches
Mail list logo
