On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 10:49:05AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
>On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use
>> this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not
nts are not very convincing, but crucially, I have
>not found any statement from the FSF as to why they have deemed this subsection
>to be a non-problem. I might just go ahead and ask them directly.
I think it's lawyer-speak CYA. There's nothing magic there.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
the regulars here all know
what you think about various licenses and, frankly, we don't care to
hear about it any more.
Please try and find something more constructive to do.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free
, a term the license fails to define.
Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how
Francesco Poli wrote:
Please let's try and avoid running in circles...
*rotfl*
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs
here. Statements from a couple of people
on the debian-legal list that they don't like certain parts of the
license is not a clear decision that it is not free. The real decision
comes from the FTP team.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
liw
.
Its requirement for the modifier's name to be recorded is also a
concern. I think the âDissidentâ test is violated by this.
Which means nothing; it has no solid grounding in the DFSG.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
liw everything I know
.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
liw everything I know about UK hotels I learned from Fawlty Towers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
that some of the debian-legal subscribers
believe it (and some of the other common tests) are ridiculously
contrived and bogus.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone
like hypocrisy -
they're not going to gain you any friends, nor are they going to
encourage people to devote their valuable time to Free Software
projects.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect most samba developers are already technically
Markus Laire writes:
On 8/31/06, Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end, those same maintainers
have given up on that as a lost cause and instead have started work on
a free cdrtools fork that will ship in etch instead of cdrtools.
Do you have any link/source to support the claim
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve McIntyre:
Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
software means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of program
too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
program
that are NOT programs...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve McIntyre:
The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
real
.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's actually quite entertaining to watch ag129 prop his foot up on
the desk so he can get a better aim. [ seen in ucam.chat ]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:50:42PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[ I do love the way you just snipped the rhetoric I was following up
to... ]
*yawn* That's a nice line in rhetoric you have there. The DFSG is the
standard that DDs have agreed should be the basis
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
FFS, that's not what I was saying. You need to be a DD to propose or
vote on updates to the DFSG. You're clearly not a DD (nor in the NM
queue), therefore you couldn't do either. You could change that if you
from the sidelines.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver. -- Daniel Pead
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
runtime
at which point these packages are _clearly_ not one work.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
to be holier than RMS.
[ ] Good grief! Next you'll be saying Qmail and Opera belong in main.
[ X ] Type error! Balanced opinions not allowed in @lists.debian.org.
*grin*
It's a well-reasoned summary of the license and the issues that should
be a useful guide. Thanks!
--
Steve McIntyre
perfectly
capable of saying no if people contact you to ask...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out
whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast
Brian Sniffen write:
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's some strong crack you've been smoking Brian; I'd give it a rest
for a while. Your interpretation of how applications, libraries and
the kernel live together is *special*.
My interpretation is just the plain wording of GPL 2b
on a CD and label it
Debian OS, if running eclipse loads a program made out of copies of
Kaffe and Eclipse.
That's some strong crack you've been smoking Brian; I'd give it a rest
for a while. Your interpretation of how applications, libraries and
the kernel live together is *special*.
--
Steve
on a CD and label it
Debian OS, if running eclipse loads a program made out of copies of
Kaffe and Eclipse.
That's some strong crack you've been smoking Brian; I'd give it a rest
for a while. Your interpretation of how applications, libraries and
the kernel live together is *special*.
--
Steve
a floopy or
CD containing the vendor-supplied firmware. Do keep up...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because heaters aren't purple! -- Catherine Pitt
to feed a floopy or
CD containing the vendor-supplied firmware. Do keep up...
Gah, wrong list.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
that it is IMHO...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
far end, and the goat, terminated over
:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads
to later versions being applicable.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
sabotage the work of -legal.
Simple question: what do you think _is_
, with precedent. And in this case
professional training is much more important than in the others you
named IMHO.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here.
Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, and a cheap
to happen. A weekly bits from -legal type post would be a
useful thing: a short summary of licenses/clauses discussed and the
salient points brought up. That might encourage contributions from the
rest of the project, such that other DDs might start to care about
what goes on here...
--
Steve
will always
have a much louder voice/vote.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
afraid I'll miss my stop -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly,
unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several
variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that
such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying
accessible. Updates
to the DFSG are one thing I'd like to see to streamline some of the
discussion; maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions
would help too.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
objection...
No, I think the main objection
David Nusinow writes:
2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in the
DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing to
fear from this, and you only stand to gain
saying no
choice of venue clauses are allowed. Why are they not allowed, and what other
sorts of clauses could this reasoning be applied to? I think the answers to
these questions are the key to the problem.
Quite.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED
a vocal minority, and (b) it's just
FUD. The form is I don't like your conclusion, and I haven't thought
about it, so I'm going to blame you.
And simply labelling the people who disagree with you as a vocal
minority is what, then?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL
% of people who think that choice
of venue could be a fee. IS 80% enough to get consensus ?
For the sake of my own understanding of people's opinions, was there a fourth?
I don't believe it to be a fee myself (or in fact non-free), but I
may not have made that clear enough.
--
Steve McIntyre
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
DDs
requirement that we push data to the
initial developer of a QPL'd work, I take it, since you're against Debian
pushing data to the US government?
The US government and the initial developer are rather different - the
initial developer at least has some reasonable link to the software.
--
Steve McIntyre
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
*sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
without fee, would you consider the GPL to be non
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
sigh You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs
debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This dress doesn't reverse. -- Alden Spiess
Don Armstrong writes:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Don Armstrong writes:
None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
you don't like, it must
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
I certainly have no desire to waste time arguing about
[ Apologied for the delay in responding; I've had hardware issues
stopping me seeing this ]
Don Armstrong writes:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
What part of
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group
Don Armstrong writee:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
discrimination.
That's why we're discussing it now (and have discussed it in the
past.) We're trying to determine what amount
Bernard R Link writes:
* Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040721 00:51]:
Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that
clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out
there will have clauses
of the interpretations have
been getting pretty damn loose lately...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten. -- Malcolm Ray
use this or similar. If other
circumstances created by local law or coincidence are causing
difficulties, then why is that a license problem?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten. -- Malcolm Ray
Don Armstrong writes:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
All users of the software are given the same license. The license
itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say no
people on a desert island may use this or similar.
I think you're limiting it to explicit
the requirement to either provide the sources or offer to produce
them within 3 years?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten. -- Malcolm Ray
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation
where we have regular disagreements on some of this?
No, I don't. More clearly: I don't think a situation where we're forced
to read
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:35:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license
discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in
the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually
the current situation
where we have regular disagreements on some of this?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code
is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth
position. And James has
responded on the silly GR thread: see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg00559.html
for example. Most of the time I'm prepared to skip over your posts to
the lists, but out and out lies like this deserve being exposed for
what they are.
--
Steve McIntyre
. In the real world, no. Try that in court and you'll get
laughed at.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/
going on here...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:15:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 15:46:16 +0100 Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software
63 matches
Mail list logo
