instead.
Someone might write a free driver for Windows, that this wrapper could run.
--
Glenn Maynard
to writing free drivers for Windows.)
--
Glenn Maynard
prohibited without explicit written
approval signed by an authorized Linuxant officer.
7. Performance. Actual speeds vary and are often less than the maximum
possible.
--
Glenn Maynard
the JasPer
Contributors (e.g., from lawsuits claiming contributory infringement or
something similar).
Does such a thing as contributory infringement exist for patents? I've
only heard of that particular evil in relation to copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
restrictions clauses, so
they have a tendency to be incompatible with each other. It's another
reason I'm tending to like copylefts less these days: they lead to a lot
of license incompatibility, which results in code rewriting, which has
wasted lots of my time recently.)
--
Glenn Maynard
-incompatible, even if you don't happen to
be using it to make bombs.)
Could you link to the thread you're referencing?
--
Glenn Maynard
, at least.
(For what it's worth, I doubt most people using the GPL have thought all
that much about its consequences and effects, at least from my experience
of discussing those effects with people ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
contribute code, we want a license
to use it under *both* copyright and patent laws, not just copyright.
I'm undecided about reciprocity for something we don't require to begin
with (patent licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
Contributors.
--
Glenn Maynard
of this strategy. Other than the mixing of patent and copyright, it
seems few people have issues with it.
I'm not sure if there's a separate fight behind the reciprocity clause
(#5). Is it there as another defense mechanism, or is it there to make
4b more palatable to patent holders?
--
Glenn Maynard
clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.
--
Glenn Maynard
violating the license, from obtaining a new copy
of the software and using (copying, modifying, distributing) that instead?
I assume it doesn't work that way. I don't really know how it does work,
though.
--
Glenn Maynard
to find defenses
against patents (of which free software has scarce few), and to do so in
a way that doesn't force others to weaken their own patent defenses.
--
Glenn Maynard
(not just revokable
at whim, which is obviously non-free), wouldn't this include GPL #4?
I'm not suggesting that the GPL is non-free, or that the proposed
clause in question is free; just that this statement seems overly
broad.
--
Glenn Maynard
with improved phrasing). It's difficult to say whether it outweighs
the restrictions, since the side-effects of the restrictions aren't
obvious to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
), not (Kaffe's GPL)
and GPL incompatible Java software.
--
Glenn Maynard
being found that
ultimately require the attention of people who would rather be hacking,
or keeps a pet snippet of non-free software out of Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
UTF-8 terminal.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:15:26AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
s/downgrade/upgrade/
;-)
At least we're disagreeing very efficiently. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
must be licensed under the terms of this License) are incompatible
with each other. Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
has little to do with the BSD license, though. I think
claiming association with it is bordering on deceptive ...
--
Glenn Maynard
was changed to GPL, from LGPL. This isn't a no-
commecial-use (which would be non-free), but it has the same effect in most
cases.
I seem to recall there being an LGPL fork, though.
Alternatively, if you're not yet set on a database, you could use postgresql;
it's BSD-licensed.
--
Glenn Maynard
, and understand that we're not giving
legal advice.
They may not be entirely on-topic, but they're closer than most of the
threads on d-devel are ...
--
Glenn Maynard
Logo was placed under a permissive
copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark
law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would
still not be DFSG-free.
Using laws other than copyright to restrict freedom is not a loophole to
main.
--
Glenn Maynard
apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip.
The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo
allowances.
We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
--
Glenn Maynard
. Re-plonk.)
--
Glenn Maynard
that have been actively enforced, at
least in the past.)
--
Glenn Maynard
function for free, thus, TMPGEnc (which you
can download from this website) has limited MPEG-2 encoding function
because it is free. I recall that being a patent issue, but can't find
anything more specific.
--
Glenn Maynard
. It would be a most serious crippling.
Which features will be disabled to permit safe distribution in Debian is
ultimately not your decision.
This attitude (forget the legal issues, we need this feature!) is precisely
why Debian is so hesitant to go near mplayer.
--
Glenn Maynard
, unedited message, mail me
and I'll forward it in private.)
--
Glenn Maynard
is a bad idea, though.
Any form of enforcement indicates a hostile patent owner.
--
Glenn Maynard
, not eliminated.
I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
as enforced.
--
Glenn Maynard
, and you can attempt to take steps to change the situation
if you like. However, in the meantime the RC bug is still correct and
should be fixed, or (if you refuse to adhere to both the Social Contract
and the license on the Official Use logo), remain open.
--
Glenn Maynard
.)
Yes but thats the unofficial logo. I want to be able to use the
official logo.
But you can't. (Even if you close bugs pointing out this fact to you.)
--
Glenn Maynard
.
--
Glenn Maynard
would be DFSG-free? I'd suppose
it would fall under the if you change this, change the name allowances;
if you change this product, change the logo. I'm not sure if that's
free, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
software is.
That is, of course, completely irrelevant. Nobody's questioning that
a compiler is software. Do you have a point?
And why are you stating this as if we *havn't* been discussing the
topic at length for months?
--
Glenn Maynard
could be free. You seem to be disagreeing with Richard, saying that we
probably want the Official Logo to be restricted by both copyright and
trademark.
(I agree that the Official Logo is inherently non-free, and that the
Open Use Logo should be under a simple, permissive license.)
--
Glenn Maynard
. The unclarified Artistic license
should probably fall in this category (ignoring grandfather clause
interpretations of DFSG#10, which is really just an escape hatch to
avoid having to deal with problems in those licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
to the original survey.
--
Glenn Maynard
, and I'm far from
alone in this.
It's certainly tiresome to see the old but *this* little bit of non-free
doesn't seem to be causing any problems, so it's okay! arguments again.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has
lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to
do next.
--
Glenn Maynard
be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG manuals are not free.
(Because they fail the GFDL, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
.
--
Glenn Maynard
said no
source code is provided, not no source code exists.)
A link to past discussions would be useful, to avoid repeating them.
--
Glenn Maynard
of the FSF, and going on and on with definitions that have zero
relevance to the spirit of the issue.
plonk
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:39:59PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And that is relevant how? I parse that as technical needs of
No, I parse that as needs.
Debian's goals include the provision of free sex for its users
I think you're in a minority here.
:(
--
Glenn Maynard
that are
important for software are also important for documentation. This
has been pointed out numerous times, and I've yet to see any interesting
arguments otherwise.
(Putting words in people's mouths is not an interesting debate tactic.
Stop wasting our time.)
--
Glenn Maynard
it with code that has extra restrictions. You can
combine just about anything with 3-clause BSD-licensed software.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Don't look now, but Creative Commons publishes somewhere around half a dozen
licenses :-) (Though some are pretty blatantly non-free)
(No ridiculously excessive license proliferation here, folks! Nope!)
--
Glenn Maynard
remember on every message.
What he's asking for is the list policy default. You know this. If you
won't fix your mailer, you'll continue to get complaints. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
in the endeavor of writing
proprietary software, and a person choosing not to accept something
because of personal preference.
--
Glenn Maynard
can't read DFSG#6 that broadly.
--
Glenn Maynard
discriminate that
broadly.
This is pointless; reply snipped.
--
Glenn Maynard
license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
--
Glenn Maynard
you to establish a legally binding document to exchange or
give away those rights or interests.
http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html , at least, disagrees
with you.
--
Glenn Maynard
, even though it just said you can do
neither. What?
Is it trying to say that you can remove the preamble as long as you also
make some kind of modification to the license text? That would be
strange (and pointless, I think; change some whitespace.)
--
Glenn Maynard
an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project.
--
Glenn Maynard
languages
--
Glenn Maynard
on either.
Yes, it would: sticking solidly to our principles benefits users. Putting
non-free items in Debian chips away at our principles and paves the way for
more concessions to non-freeness.
Don't let the Social Contract and the DFSG go the way of the US Constitution.
--
Glenn Maynard
leave that to others.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, the package containing it, which means creating a perl-doc-non-free
package.
But wait--we can't even do that, due to the very licensing we're discussing.
Even worse.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
vir·tu·al·ly adv.
1. In fact or to all purposes; practically.
2. Almost but not quite; nearly.
--
Glenn Maynard
, this is
a pointless debate, unless you're also making that claim. (It's pretty
pointless anyway; the number of people who believe something but are
unwilling or unable to defend that position is not very interesting.)
--
Glenn Maynard
requires that it be packaged with a
non-free manifesto, the document isn't free, either.
There would be fewer problems if invariant sections were only immutable,
not unremovable.
--
Glenn Maynard
to set
the Mail-Followups-To header.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:14:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
anyway, I'll wait until Debian's position on the GFDL is documented
somewhere and then address all these together.
How is that relevant?
--
Glenn Maynard
to the GPL?
Was there such a statement, and are we sure it meant exactly this and
wasn't being interpreted? (I seem to recall reading an interpretation
of a statement that I didn't buy, but it was too long ago for me to
remember clearly.)
--
Glenn Maynard
one that's likely to expose you to greater liability.
--
Glenn Maynard
this is to remove my right to do it at all?
That's ludicrous. Rights are not preserved by revoking other rights.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 10:45:44PM +0200, Patrick Mauritz wrote:
after someone mentioned that change about 1 year late on slashdot,
The slashdot post was (as one would expect from a slashdot post) bogus;
nothing changed. This was discussed here at the time; search the list
archives.
--
Glenn
-free for other
reasons. I don't know if there was any consensus reached from the above
post.
--
Glenn Maynard
implicitly requires that you allow
your modifications to be used proprietarily, since it prevents you from adding
the GPL's safeguards against it. I'd find that license to be obnoxious (and
it'd be incompatible with most other licenses), but it doesn't seem non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
: not being able to readd the source distribution requirement
is itself a restriction, so it'd be GPL-incompatible.
--
Glenn Maynard
of all, only the preamble of the GPL is so marked; the FSF has
I believe the whole license was so marked, but was relaxed by a license
clarification of the FSF.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
--
Glenn Maynard
like manifestos.)
--
Glenn Maynard
in accord with 3B for
every piece of GPL software they distribute, so 3C is irrelevant. Pointing
to the place you downloaded the software is not enough to satisfy the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
. You can reference *any* document in this way. It's
certainly not similar to software patches. (And I believe many people on
this list consider the patches exception to have been an error.)
There's nothing free about being forced to do this.
--
Glenn Maynard
of that text all I want, and as long as I don't claim the
resulting text is the FSF's beliefs, I'm not misrepresenting anything.
The only thing stopping me from doing that is the FSF's copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
it there)
--
Glenn Maynard
the distinction (distributors) spend the time.
(It'd be a fair bit of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free
licenses.)
--
Glenn Maynard
out onto debian-devel, as
the existing arguments are still scattered among hundreds of messages.
--
Glenn Maynard
language that I believe there were no objections to.
--
Glenn Maynard
that is licensed
under the GPL with additional restrictions (except, perhaps, this one).
If you know of any, it might be worth bringing up on d-legal.
--
Glenn Maynard
text on the card? If the GPL,
a change list as well?
If these are a problem as well, the argument against the GFDL here is
less interesting; and if they're not, this GFDL argument probably isn't,
either.
There seem to be other, more convincing arguments against invariant
sections.
--
Glenn
giving (the possibility is still there,
even though Debian has no obligation to ditfibute the result)--but as GNU
is actively *using* them, it would still result in GNU documentation being
removed from Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
, but the practical problems are
not.
--
Glenn Maynard
, unless someone comes up
with a solution without side-effects.
--
Glenn Maynard
source isn't reputed as being the easiest to
modify or build
--
Glenn Maynard
to the running implementation. Since
you never got a copy, nobody has any obligation to provide you with source.
--
Glenn Maynard
a real one.
[1] Of course, Microsoft's products that make use of BSD code aren't
highly known as being very *good*; but they don't release source just
the same.
--
Glenn Maynard
the software to. If
you give the software to me, you should not be able to decide who I can
give it to.
(I think you probably agree, but the quoted text implies otherwise.)
--
Glenn Maynard
]) without a lawyer?
[1] http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this
list.
--
Glenn Maynard
restrictions (no commercial use).
--
Glenn Maynard
loophole doesn't even hint at the above. Perhaps RPC loophole,
or CORBA loophole?)
Maybe it can be tossed in as another case of linking, but the convincing
hasn't been done yet.
--
Glenn Maynard
people's freedom. Placing obligations isn't equivalent to reducing
freedom (though they often coincide, and we should be skeptical about
obligations that don't preserve freedom).
--
Glenn Maynard
of non-free code to it, and
add restrictions prohibiting further redistribution. The only way you'll
get that is with a copyleft, not with a BSD-ish license.
That is, the caveats you're referring to are caveats of copylefted
software, not of free software in general.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
OK. It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.
--
Glenn
801 - 900 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
