Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In a free
software
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
to that party, you must either:
a) Distribute the complete
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:18:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
First of all, that sounds more like a matter of inconvenience, not a
matter of non-freeness. After all, there are probably situations under
which it would be a burden to distribute the source for a GPLed binary
you are
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The exception I mentioned would be for web application-type software.
I am somewhat biased since the free software I write and maintain is
in that category, but I think it is justifiable for a license to
require
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
to that party, you must either:
a) Distribute the complete corresponding
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main thing I don't understand in the recent discussion is that, if we
don't take personal offense at a licensor's bad license, why should we
expect the licensor to take offense if we bounce it for failing the DFSG?
Why do we act as if their time is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more fundamental basis, abitrary termination clauses are odious and
offensive to freedom because we are not free if we are just waiting for the
hammer to fall. One of things you give up when you decide to share your
work with the FLOSS community is
Branden Robinson writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm certainly not clear that the new SC gives any leeway to use tests
that don't spring directly from the DFSG.
Put that way, it doesn't give us any leeway to use tests at all.
In any event, I laid out
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of The copyright
holder may terminate this license at any time discriminate against? How
does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in
an
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The
Branden Robinson writes:
The DFSG does not have a clause which mandates a license must not restrict
the usage of a work by all recipients. Does it need one[1]?
As a non-DD, I would say it should have one, with perhaps one
exception as described below. That kind of restriction is probably
not
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
So why should have one rather than needs one? Many people are
fond of emphasizing the Guidelines part of DFSG, and I hope that
everyone would agree that a restriction on use is non-free. Yet there
are always some who disagree, so
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:51:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective.
I think there should be a
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
Interestingly, the new version of
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
We are obligated to serve the interests of our users and free software.
This is *no* obligation to accept all free software into the archive.
That premise appears to be firmly rejected by a segment of Debian
developers.
We are, it
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:01:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper.
Well, *this* list is like a debate, as are discussion lists generally.
Announcement lists are more like newspapers.
--
G. Branden Robinson| What
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:37:47PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WE ARE NOT LAWYERS
[...]
I suggest that in the vast majority of cases it is clear when a license
is free in a practical sense. MPL has obscure clauses that bother
some debian-legal extremists, but in practice, MPL meets
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:39:13PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
Indeed, much that it may well be good for a woman to be able to nurse her
child at
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:37:13PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that it will be
Sam Hartman wrote:
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
enforced, and there's no good reason to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
posted mailed
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the
Lex Spoon wrote:
Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In a free
software license or commercial EULA however, the licensee
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time anyway? What practical benefit does this
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
I would assume that if a licensor put such a
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance of
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
contains a clause
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
posted mailed
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
and that's what a
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
other acceptable? The
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
Whosoever compares one's opposition in a discussion to indulging in
masturbation
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
patented
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Sorry for the complications. There is an attempt to change the DFSG
through various Tests. Some of them make sense, some of them are
just arbitrarily designed to exclude specific licenses (or even
specific software!). The
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
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:
There's far too much navel-gazing going on here...
I don't think that observation helps.
There does
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:05:48AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective.
I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says:
Whosoever compares one's opposition in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
I still don't see how this is any less of a
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
Interestingly, the new version of the Social Contract[1] seems to give us
less latitude than the original
* Branden Robinson:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even reject)
software without reason. I doubt that the test du jour can
* Branden Robinson:
Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
another.
Which of these are patent infringement allegations
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite
another.
Which of
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will
cause your license to terminate.
What makes you think that the GPL is not a revocable license, in
practice?
Because it only terminates if you refust to comply with it, or if you
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
It makes a huge difference.
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
choice of *law* clause looks like this:
This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California.
A choice of venue clause does something
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
provide. There's a practical difference.
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
I'm not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
Where does the Social Contract bind us to using no tool other than the DFSG
to determine whether a work we distribute as part of our system is free?
We are obligated to our users not to remove (maybe even
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:17:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of The copyright
holder may terminate this license at any time discriminate against? How
Any and all fields of endeavour, depending on the licensor's mood. It can
even change
Steve Langasek wrote:
If the mplayer upstream developers are controlled by evil alien
cephalopods is a procedurally valid reason to keep a package out of
Debian, than so is the Chinese dissident test.
I strongly hope that that is not the only reason MPlayer has not been
accepted into Debian
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses.
On
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole wrote:
The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
allow the author to terminate the license
On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
It's also a practical difficulty, as we hope to be
On 2004-07-12 18:52:11 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray:
Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't seem important when the DFSG were written? [...]
I doubt arbitrary termination clauses are a new problem, even since
then.
Sorry for the complications. There is an
Josh Triplet wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
other acceptable? The user is equally
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different
set
of circumstances)?
Is that arbitrary?
Enforcement
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
there other
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplet wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
other acceptable? The
Matthew Garrett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
patented software, then it's non-free without such a
Josh Triplett wrote:
We do not wish for our user's freedoms to be revokable, and we do not
accept licenses that allow anyone to do so. However, *no matter what
the Free Software license says*, a third-party patent holder can always
sweep in and use their patents to prevent distribution. This is
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for
users than the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
The patent non-policy
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
-- the current situation is not tenable for the years to come. It's
not something anybody should
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there
until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another
-- the current situation is not tenable for the years
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are
there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination?
Any situation which
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
thread,
you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
Joey Hess wrote:
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
the message you replied to!
I consider myself a reasonable
On 2004-07-13 20:59:07 +0100 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't send me provate correspondance about public matters then,
There seemed little reason to point out your stupidity in public, but
you think otherwise. Fine. It's still not good to repost private to
public.
--
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
It makes a huge difference. They can get access to much more software
if
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
I still don't see how this is any less of a
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
requirements results in you no longer being able to
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective. We should be worried about freedom because it has real,
practical effects on what people can do with the software we ship.
Theoretical limitations that have no real
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.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by
* MJ Ray:
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
otherwise.
This
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.
On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] In fact, the DFSG do not
deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
Are you sure? Really sure? Can you explain why?
DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
licensor to require
MJ Ray wrote:
DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily. --
Bruce Perens, Is Your Software In Danger of Termination? at
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040712 18:10]:
There does seem to be a lot of effort being put into inventing
extremely contrived arguments in -legal these days to make various
licenses look non-free. At the current rate, it won't be long before
someone invents a reason to declare the
Matthew Garrett writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
DFSG require that software be freely redistributable, which certainly
isn't the case if the license has been terminated arbitrarily. --
Bruce Perens, Is Your Software In Danger of Termination? at
http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
Surely GPL 7
On 2004-07-12 17:11:43 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
possible risk when the licence is being discussed and leave it at
that?
I'm happy with that, in general. Is this acceptable for a licence
already covering
* Andreas Barth:
Also, the distinction between free and non-free is broken by this. If
even acceptable restrictions are considered non-free, than DFSG-free
is no longer an helpful guide for our users and also not for ourself.
Yes, this is a very valid point. If more and more packages are
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
Michael Poole wrote:
The important difference is who restricts distribution of the
purportedly free software: Its author or some third party who claims
to control the software. DFSG implies that the license should not
allow the author to terminate the license unilaterally. On the other
hand, I
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-07-12 16:33:35 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] In fact, the DFSG do not
deal with _any_ conflicts that may arise, or with license termination.
Are you sure? Really sure?
Yes, I checked it again. 8-)
Can you explain why?
Maybe it didn't seem
* Michael Poole:
DFSG implies that the license should not allow the author to
terminate the license unilaterally.
Which clause implies that? Maybe I'm missing something some obvious,
but I can't find one.
On 2004-07-12 18:39:57 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
non-free suddenly starts to include works released by the Free
Software Foundation.
That part seems inevitable in the current situation. FSF does not
claim that FDL'd works are free software. That said, FDL is
MJ Ray wrote:
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
otherwise.
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
