Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate ways. Like it or not,
we're stuck with each other.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You said earlier that you *must* have a contract to disclaim, as if a
non-contractual disclaimer is everywhere void. Now you recognize the
truth, it seems, that a non-contractual disclaimer is, somewhere,
sometimes, a useful thing. Since Free Software in
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
reply at this point. ]
The response you are quoting
Stephen Ryan writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute,
and to request the publishers to make the license clearer.
Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group
rather than just one person talking.
--
-russ nelson
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible to
work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal judge
licenses, and have OSI
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Right. That's for licenses which are contractual. Free software
licenses are unilateral grants of permission, for which it is
unimportant to certify acceptance.
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for #3.
No. A license may treat different
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
don't think the OSD should get any votes
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:38:52AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If
you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this
software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
disclaims warranty.
That's not true.
What's not true? That there is a free
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
these terms, it complies with the logical and of
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
In general, contract law, nor license interpretation, which basically
proceeds along the same lines, does not accept tried really hard as
satisfying the terms of the contract.
If a contract is ambiguous, then a court of law will go outside the
contract to
John Goerzen writes:
Can you positively assert that this is the case in every country, not just
the US or Britain?
You are asking a question whose answer is of no importance.
Read section 12.8 of the RPSL.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um ... who would you copy it to? You've already shared the changes
with your friend. There's nobody else -- and once there is, you can
give it to them, too.
What? The point is that the license requires you
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
Joe Drew wrote:
Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're
Don Armstrong writes:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME
distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream
eventually supplies DFSG-free software.
You're asking the wrong people then,
Don Armstrong writes:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
Because they don't think it's fair for you to make changes that you've
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Armstrong writes:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and
round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing
cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient
interest in the idea of evolving the OSD DFSG in a common
direction, and maybe even making them
John Goerzen writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like
OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD
John Goerzen writes:
The DFSG does not simply say No discrimination; it says no discrimination
against persons or groups. While you may enjoy your over-legalistic
interpretation, a reasonable person understands that this clause does not
mean to reject every possible license.
Exactly my
Steve Langasek writes:
What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more
like the OSD?
Let me rephrase what you said. I want to be clear that I expect
Debian to change the DFSG, and OSI to change the OSD. Both documents
can be improved, but they should be improved to
I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your behavior. It's not something to engender
confidence.
Jason
Mark Rafn writes:
I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition
rather than a set of guidelines.
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian. But that is a right
Glenn Maynard writes:
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless requested.
I do
No need to CC me, I'm on the list.
Henning Makholm writes:
I dimly recall that the test we applied in the IBM was: If the patent
licence grant and its associated termination clause were deleted from
the license, would it then be free? The answer was yes, and the
license should not become
Why are you CC'ing me when the Debian list policy is not to?
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian
Sam Hartman writes:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to.
That's an explanation of why it's hard to change
John Goerzen writes:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:21:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Every license that has any interesting terms discriminates. The GPL
discriminates against people who don't want to give away their code.
The APSL discriminates against people who don't want to give
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
source licenses should be run past
Lo'oRiS il Kabukimono writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nelson nelson@crynwr.com :
and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain
unlicensed software.
strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian...
I've no doubt. Still, where in the DFSG does
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have
unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian?
It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what
one *can't* have in Debain
Steve Langasek writes:
Hmm, I think there are two separate issues here: there's the EULA
itself, which almost certainly violates the FSF's freedom zero (the
freedom to use the software, even if the user doesn't agree with the
license for redistribution and modification);
But the user does
Mark Rafn writes:
Are there specific divides among the community you seek to address?
Mostly the fact that some people get grumpy when we change the OSD.
They express the concern that our community not be split -- and that
everything which is open source is free software and vice-versa.
That's
Henning Makholm writes:
Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
guidelines. Why do you want two?
We don't want two, we have only one.
You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do not carry the day.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com |
Henning Makholm writes:
A licence that enforces a click-wrap fails to grant the
freedom of redistibution and modification that is explicitly required
by the DFSG.
What term of the DFSG says this? Should we go through the DFSG point
by point?
Free Redistribution
The license of a
Steve Langasek writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity
to mean what *they* want?
... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never
represented, *anywhere
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.
The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for
DFSG-freedom
Different topic, differently reply.
Henning Makholm writes:
which mentions stopping *use*. We object to the notion that one needs
to to comply with specific terms simply to use the software (as
opposed to modifying or distributing it).
A warranty disclaimer applies to users of the
John Goerzen writes:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
writing to you today in that stead.
In another message, you asked if there were some substantive differences
between the OSD
Brian M. Carlson writes:
Any software under this license[0] is non-free but is OSI Certified Open
Source Software. I don't particularly remember why; you can search the
archives, but the consensus was that it was non-free.
Hmmm... license-discuss vetted it against the OSD, but debian-legal
Brian M. Carlson writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing
John Goerzen writes:
In a nutshell, you are handing over rights to all your patents to
Apple if you use the software, but the license is quite explicit
that Apple is not handing over rights to all their patents in
exchange.
I don't think it's the best defense against patents, but it's *a*
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG is
intended to be taken literally and without interpretation, though. The
DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by human judgement.
Obviously. The question is how much augmenting is necessary. For
example, if you
John Goerzen writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Further, a case could be made that it violates clase 5 (No
discrimination
against persons or groups) because it discriminates against people whom
choose to file legal cases against Apple
Glenn Maynard writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00448.html
Thanks.
Why not change the DFSG?
There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG as a
set of human guidelines, rather than a word-strict block of legalese that
Sam Hartman writes:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell But even if you disagree with me, how would you change
Russell the DFSG so that it agrees with you? Because I see
Russell nothing in the DFSG which keeps APSL code out of Debian
Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
writing to you today in that stead.
We want to explore convergence between the Open Source Definition, and
the Debian Free Software Guidelines. OSI is interested in mending
differences in our community, so that we can stand
Steve Langasek writes:
[CC:ed to debian-policy, which seems a more likely forum for discussing
changes to core documents.]
I was told that debian-legal was the place to hold this discussion.
I suspect that I speak for a fair number of developers in saying that
self-determination is
Simon Law writes:
Public domain software that is unlicensed does not have the
protection of copyright law. Therefore, it is likely to meet all the
DFSG criteria.
How can it? There is no license, so how can it meet #3 Derived Works?
I'm not being trivial and pointless here, I'm being
Adam DiCarlo writes:
I applaud this, but I don't think a literal merging of the OSD and
DFSG (from which the OSD derived) is feasible, nor does it really (in
itself) create solidarity with us or other free software projects.
No, but it's a start. At very least what could happen is a
Steve Langasek writes:
though, of course, our own *local* bureaucracy is such that it would
likely take some time before the DFSG were ever modified. :-)
I know.
I might suggest, however, you approach the LSB or other larger free
software standards organizations regarding a
63 matches
Mail list logo
