technology, which did not really exist when GPLv2
was written -- would protect a peer-to-peer sharer of Debian.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org
, and the scope of this clause appears to
be the same. To me, it seems strictly more permissive than most
copyleft provisions, and on that basis I don't see a DFSG problem.
Michael Poole (neither Debian developer nor lawyer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
enough) create
a compatible header file that did not fall under this license -- but no
one has done so, and until (a) someone does that and (b) these software
packages use that file instead of the current one, the license in the
current file is very relevant.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
does
not in itself make those clauses DFSG-compliant.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Nicolas Alvarez writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
are somehow great... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want
to me what kind of protection you think the GPL or LGPL provided that
the MIT license does not provide. Similarly, the meaning of fail
inspection is not clear. This all sounds like FUD to me.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
a small data set
can be used to generate a default model, having a large-input-data
model in non-free may imply that the executable software belongs in
contrib rather than in main.
Michael Poole
(Neither a lawyer nor a DD.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
restrictions -- export
controls, sensitive or classified information, proprietary content,
and so forth. Because of that, I would not consider it a reliable
statement about the applicable copyright license.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
are occasionally argued over). Anthony
DeRobertis's post was part of a lengthy discussion[3] that may be
useful reference.
Michael Poole
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
[2]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00220.html
[3]- from http://lists.debian.org
they think the mappings are protected by copyright.
Michael Poole (IANAL, IANADD, TINLA)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Michael Poole (not a lawyer, not a Debian Developer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not
have the political clout to successfully argue that the truth depends
on what the meaning of 'is' is.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rather than information -- especially when that
information is not stored digitally on a computer-readable medium, as
in Francesco's example of a paper printout.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of Tukey's definition. At least in that
early, contrasted-with-hardware meaning, software was definitely not a
general term for information, but a name for the instructions that
produced function and results from a computer. Is there some earlier
use of the word that is broader?
Michael Poole
Ben Finney writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most computer-literate English speakers in the world use software
to mean computer program rather than information
Perhaps, but that's not very relevant here. This discussion thread
relates to a highly technically-focussed forum
Peter S Galbraith writes:
Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
library?
That is not at all what he said. The test for
), section 3's mere
aggregation language seems to apply.
It is polite and advisable to follow the author's wishes to the extent
that doing so is practical, but right now I see no reason to think
that any elisp author wishes his GPLv2-only elisp to not be used with
a GPLv3-licensed Emacs.
Michael
and I would use that rule for myself. I am not
a lawyer, so I cannot offer legal advice to anyone else, and the
standard other disclaimers apply.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GPLv3 -- that provide the interfaces needed by most or
all of the elisp in question. It is clearly absurd to say that a work
written a year (or five years) ago depends on a GPLv3-licensed version
of emacs; there was no such thing when the older work was written.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
make the most out
of software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone else's word on crypto
export controls.
You might be able to find and read the export restrictions on your
own, but retaining a lawyer is the safe bet since the lawyer would
know either how the law in the field is applied or the limits of their
own knowledge.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
libgcc from the gcc binary, so that libgcc is distributed separately
from the packages containing the gcc compilers.
(Also: If, for a modern packaging system, a compiler is essential
but the packaging system is not, the FSF needs to have its head
re-examined.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
necessary to exercise software freedoms have not.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
permission is theft and those like John Smith,
if you dance the Macarena before killing Judy Doe, you can not be
found guilty of murder? Where does one draw the line between sending
an analysis (not particular to a given person or action) to a mailing
list and representing someone else in court?
Michael
politics; Debian politics are not so different.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
maintainers') benefit?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
line of reasoning goes -- it would
be inconsistent to interpret accompany one way at the start of
section 3 and a different way at the end of section 3.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or convenient venue
(since SCO would love to have all its lawsuits venued in Utah).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
ECC.
And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
Michael Poole gave a good answer.
He didn't address
Kern Sibbald writes:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that
dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is
not available to Debian (... unless that component itself accompanies
://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/emacs.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstream
maintainer of one package
, at least as
far as legal analysis goes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in a free software license?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't
information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions
DFSG freeness?
[1]-
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/boost/boost_1.33.1-10/libboost-date-time1.33.1.copyright
which mentions many libraries beyond Boost's date_time library
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
the licensor's views on the issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is
buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some
point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm.
Michael Poole
[1]- http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm is a
copy; see section 110.
Josselin Mouette writes:
Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit :
Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
ignore it.
Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which
to the FSF about
getting permission to use the text of the GPL in a GPL+limitations
type of license.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
rights (for a limited period), it is incorrect to continually treat
trademark law like those others in hope that you will convince us
otherwise.
Michael Poole
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 13:39, Michael Poole wrote:
Trademark law is not strictly analogous to patent or copyright law.
Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
Trademark law's purpose is not to encourage or reward the commercial
use of new marks, but to stem certain kinds of pernicious consumer
confusion. As it is not simply a question of owning and controlling
rights (for a limited period
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:08, Michael Poole wrote:
Alleged possibilities of confusion abounds. There is quite a
difference between that and actual likelihood of confusion,
particularly no one has cited any holdings that appear to be on point.
Holding
not think the law requires Debian to move
away so quickly that users are left without a working web browser.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 15:58, Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
What meaning does Firefox have beyond identifying it as a browser made
by the Mozilla Foundation? (oh, and the actual name of a kind of fox
that was mentioned earlier). I don't want
assume that any villain might
contribute code to, or buy rights to code in, Debian. However, the
Mozilla Foundation seems unlikely to sell the mark or become evil
before the following Debian release comes out and removes the
firefox transitional package.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
and
Mozilla Firefox, I suspect that most consumers who identify anything
by the word Firefox would identify the feature set -- and not the
particular software packaging -- as Firefox. On that basis, the
functionality doctrine is apposite.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
think this is the proper basis of analysis. Transition
packages are not disclaimers of any sort; they are hints to a person
or tools acting on that person's behalf.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
recent work to move
firmware-loading kernel drivers out of main. Are IM client programs
exempt from this, or should bugs be filed with appropriate severity?
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/1998/06/msg00023.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
not depend on non-main
packages (or on firmware for the devices they talk to).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it the firmware was not loaded, because a
resistor is burnt out, or whatever -- it would be nice to know why
that becomes a policy issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the absence of
certain proprietary network server software -- IM client programs come
to mind. Do those bits need to be removed from main?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes:
Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the
absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes
useless without it, it's still the same program; but it still
depends
.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli writes:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:50:00 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
[...]
I personally disagree -- on the grounds that the software works as it
should without the blobs, and the hardware is what fails to provide
the necessary interface -- but mine is a minority viewpoint
a colorable position,
but not the one who added the sourceless code in the first place.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to protect
against liability if the software is used in some way that violates
the relevant regulations.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
only portions of the file -- in terms of how they
should describe the copyright on the reused portions -- but the chance
of that seems low enough to cross that bridge when one comes to it.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
that makes them
compatible with Lexmark's. Even if the exact case is not apposite to
CC3.0, the lesson that DRM or TPM may exist without posing a legal
problem is relevant.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* The following file trade.c was written by Adam Bryant who
* gives all rights to this code to Ed Barlow provided that this
* message remains intact.
IANAL, but this looks like an effective conveyance of copyright
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
Without a piece of paper with Adam's signature saying otherwise,
the copyright remains with him. So Ed should ensure he does not
change the copyright notice.
This is certainly a curious definition of writing
say it
is non-distributable in the first place?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
neither uniform nor universal?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than teaching, commentary, or similar purposes is not fair
practice (in the US, fair use) and requires license from the rights
holder(s).
[1]- http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
[2]- http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
that is more an academic concern than actual.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly permits one side
to be evil in this way.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
disbarment. These go away
packages in NEW,
but that is based on their judgment and not an official position.
Michael Poole
(Not a Debian Developer; not a lawyer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cause of free software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
missile launchers -- are export
controlled with no viable constitutional question and some, probably
smaller, number of cases where technical data are validly export
controlled.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
, and inform us where and when
you are running the game. (remember to include your address, name
etc.)).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Since both works are GPLed, I would
hope this would be acceptable to the trademark owners.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as not
DFSG-free.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
novelty is dubious. Similarly,
I think that including open source software in patent applications is
not defensible as a DFSG#6 field of endeavor.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
copy
of TrueCrypt could claim to be endorsed by the TrueCrypt Foundation or
by the authors of TrueCrypt?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dtufs writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
copies of the work to third parties
Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
do require distributor to serve copies of the work
knowledge to be legally dangerous.
Regardless of the actual subject of my quote, I do not think it is an
insult to remark that someone is not an expert in matters of law.
Even lawyers specialize, and a family law practitioner may not be
particularly well-versed in IP or contract law.
Michael Poole
make changes to a GPL program, is it enough if I submit the
changes upstream, or do I have to offer the patch (on the CD/on the
web)?
Neither by itself satisfies the GPL. The GPL requires that the
binary-code recipient (be able to) get the complete modified source
code.
Michael Poole
Török Edvin writes:
On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your questions about what makes a work derived from a GPLed work are
good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether
dtufs writes:
Michael Poole writes:
One sign is the frequent use of alternatives --
features/functionalities, product/modifications,
and so forth -- rather than defining a minimal set
of terms up front and using them later.
In reality, use of alternatives, either in brackets
on appropriate use of TrueCrypt and TrueCrypt
Foundation seem like a much clearer choice.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to have the OpenSSL exception granted by its copyright
holders. I am not sure what the requirement is for scenarios where
the program also links against other LGPL'ed libraries, as in:
gcc -o program $(OBJECT_FILES) -lssl -lsome_lgpl_lib
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
source software is similar,
ensuring that copyleft licenses keep effect when the government passes
a copy of the covered software to another party. You would probably
have to talk to the license writer's legal counsel to be 100% sure.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
balance would
come out of Sun's bank accounts.
If Debian has small bank accounts, I don't see how this helps either
Debian or Sun. If Debian has large bank accounts, I don't see how
this is a good prospective use of the money.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
in this case; but
unless the employer is asking in the context of an employee's paid
work, a copyright assignment is the safe bet.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gregory Colpart writes:
Chuck, I forward to debian-legal list, best place for license
experts.
By the way, cc'ing a closed list when emailing an open list is poor form.
(Hopefully this will help others avoid the auto-reject message I got.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
to that effect. Partial results
from a quick grep: xutils and a lot of other XSF packages, openssh,
openoffice.org packages, and mailcrypt. It's probably worth a best
practices entry in developers-reference.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
declines to
clarify (or clarifies by removing mention of the GPL), that is a clear
indication that it is non-free. Ideally, of course, upstream would
clarify by specifying a known DFSG-free license for the software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
media. See, for example, Clinchfield
Coal Co. v. FMSHRC, 895 F.2d 773, 779 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and in the same place as the object code.
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-licensed portions.
(If you follow debian-legal, I apologize for cc'ing you directly, but
it seemed the more reliable way to get the response through.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Hill writes:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
maintainer
violates the license, but a violator
is unlikely to be caught doing it?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, there are no monetary damages that could
be sued for in civil court
Injunctions, award of costs, and punitive damages are possible even if
there are no specific economic damages.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
