On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
provided. Since the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a
OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the bug.
I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be in
the public domain;
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:00:55PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used could be
in
the public domain; in which case the only controlling copyright is that
governing the
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because it does not follow my definition of freedom.
I would like to urge to change the Social Contract to be clarified
this in this case. I'm serious
Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
(Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
It hasn't.
Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued?
I do find such things not realy funny...
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
When conversations go nowhere, it's
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
...
... you've correctly pointed
out that at least one of the sound files in this package appears to be
copyrighted and distributed without a license, and that's a bug that should
be fixed. [...] However, even if
we find some improperly
* Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060830 17:40]:
I'm not a lawyer, but my take on this is that if someone ships you a
BLOB under the GPL, you have the legal right to demand sources from
him.
I think only copyright holders can demand something. If you distribute
something only created by you
On 8/30/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
we believe A.
Your objection, in essence seems to be
We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true.
Well... more exactly, I try to
Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
OK, you win, I will not continue with this. Do whatever you want with the
bug. I'm sending this message to debian-legal, in case other people care.
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all you've said up to this point, the sound files being used
posted mailed
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In this case, I see one rather obvious issue (there may be others):
Steve Langasek has said, in essence
When A says X, and we have no evidence to the contrary,
we believe A.
Your
Markus Laire wrote:
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake
choosing Debian, because it does not follow my definition of freedom.
I would like to urge to change the Social Contract to be clarified
this in
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53
Bas Wijnen wrote:
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According
to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
needed in order to use it,
posted mailed
Bas Wijnen wrote:
The question was if that is indeed the way Debian does these things. And
in
particular, people do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does
that
mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all?
Non-distributable. If
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
and place the
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:28:00 +0200 Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
I will start to fill bugs for packages containing data (sound, music,
images, textures, icons...) when its origin is not specified (see
below). Many of this bugs will be RC, because of legal issues; that is
MJ Ray wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
resolution?
You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.
How does one start a CC GR?
The main way that I've
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What puzzles me are the words WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT. Is that phrase
sufficient to cause US export restrictions to be incorporated into the
license? My understanding is that if so, it would not be DFSG-free, and
No. It merely remarks that the
Steve Langasek wrote:
Is this interpretation in keeping with how the CC folks understand the
license?
We don't know. Still. Doesn't that suck? CC is not entirely transparent
unfortunately.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
I'm guessing these may very well be uncopyrightable as a list of facts.
I think that's what we're all assuming. There's no real way to express them
differently: facts, idea/expression merger, etc. Not copyrightable.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for
distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us
MJ Ray wrote:
In http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html
I asked: please can someone tell us where to find the record of the
rejections by international affiliates and how the CC decision-making
works? I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org but
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
interpretation of software as such as the European Patent Office.
This means that they completely disrespect Article
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Commented in another post if it really prohibited parallel
distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not*
prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free.
Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board
and
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law.
Weakish Jiang wrote:
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
They are the team responsible for vetting the
35 matches
Mail list logo
