On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
How does the ASF interpret the clause?
I don't know, but if you think this clause is ambiguous enough that
clarification from Apache is worthwhile, remember that
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Some require it in the end-user documentation (Apache), which seems
stronger.
That's a problem, then.
The full clause:
3. The end-user documentation
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
/usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
This product includes software developed by the
Apache Software Foundation
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
statement
in advertising materials.
I disagree.
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:50:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
/usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We have imposed that requirement upon
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Some require it in the end-user documentation (Apache), which seems
stronger.
That's a problem, then.
The full clause:
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
if any, must include the following
On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
statement
in advertising materials.
I disagree. It's usually in any of the supporting documentation vs.
in all of the
On May 25, 2004, at 01:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
IMO, Mexicans can't distribute this software isn't free, even if its
part of the GPL.
Let's not get carried away.
Well, looks like you've failed your humor check today...
Let's just say I meant Mexicans as in people residing in Mexico as
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim
statement
in advertising materials.
I disagree.
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:17:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
cause the modified files to carry prominent notices; it doesn't say the
modified files or loosely associated metadata.
Nit: carry and contain are not the same word.
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:58:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(To be clear, the obnoxious advertising clause is a different issue.
All we're talking about here is the following acknowledgement, which
is used in many more licenses than the 4-clause BSD, often in much less
obnoxious ways, such
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 02:24:41AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On May 21, 2004, at 18:36, Lewis Jardine wrote:
8 bears a lot of resemblance to don't break the law clauses
IMO, Mexicans can't distribute this software isn't free, even if its
part of the GPL.
Let's not get carried
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement
in advertising materials.
Both could be wholly independently copyright works, and it is an
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:59:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is supporting
documentation is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement
in advertising materials.
2(c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is
no warranty (or
On May 21, 2004, at 18:36, Lewis Jardine wrote:
8 bears a lot of resemblance to don't break the law clauses
IMO, Mexicans can't distribute this software isn't free, even if its
part of the GPL.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
following text, is not okay.
That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
following text, is not okay.
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
8 bears a lot of resemblance to don't break the law clauses, which
used to be considered DFSG free, but which now are increasingly not.
By *whom*? I haven't seen anyone offer a solid argument that don't
break the law clauses are acceptable, I don't
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:31:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The only serious arguments I've seen (and given) for the GPL failing
DFSG#1-9, as actually applied by d-legal, are the changelog and output spam
requirements. Neither of those are relevant to copyleft at all, so this
statement is
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:31:44 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Of course, the not comfortable in the message you replied to was
referring to grandfathering, not to the freeness of the GPL, so it
didn't really make much sense as a reply.
Yes. Thank you for highlighting this (just in case it wasn't
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
I agree strongly with this sentiment.
Thanks for expressing it,
--
Raul
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
I agree, but I don't think we should force-fit it by modifying our
interpretation of the DFSG or by being less strict than we are with
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:52:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I agree, but I don't think we should force-fit it by modifying our
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
Please don't speak as if this interpretation has consensus; you know that
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:14:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Please
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:35:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
On
What alternate interpretations have any plausibility?
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:46:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
That has already been discussed at length in this thread, so I have to
assume that you're either not actually reading the thread, or that you're
deliberately wasting my time.
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
A clause which says you must credit the original author using the
following text, is not okay.
That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the
licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to say WHAT you
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:29:10PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show
license' for details, only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration
option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad?
Alexander Zarochentcev
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:29:10PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show
license' for details, only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration
option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad?
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Lewis Jardine wrote:
In my opinion, both GPL 2c and Reiser's 'Anti-Plagiarism License' are
merely different distances down the same slippery slope; if forcing
derived works to have one line of credits is OK, why not ten?
A few of us[1] aren't particularly happy with GPL
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:59:55 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:
* Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040519 00:25]:
I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10:
[...]
If it's not a bug, then don't fix it. We have enough problems with
unnecessary changes to the SC, so please leave DFSG#10 alone.
But I feel
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
put_your_favourite_non-free_license_here be grandfathered as well?
Except, it is free.
People have been not
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
put_your_favourite_non-free_license_here be grandfathered as well?
Except, it is free.
(I've reinserted a portion of the quote that you shouldn't have snipped.)
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:01:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not quite comfortable with this `grandfathering' thing.
if the GPL is not-quite-free,
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:36:17PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
4 may be non-free: as RMS understands it, violating the GPL for a given
work terminates any rights you have to it, now and in the future, even
those which would otherwise be granted by having another copy of the
work
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think you're probably right that this option, if exercised, would
be non-free. However, I have never seen anyone exercise this
particular option -- I had even forgotten it was there.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is
* Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040519 00:25]:
I'm not quite happy with DFSG#10:
[...]
I'd say that sort of information shouldn't belong in the DFSG: IMHO it
would fit much better in informative pages such as
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
What do you think?
If it's not a
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation
that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to
be included in the file
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:52:50PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
I don't think revision control logs can possibly satify it; it specifically
says
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
cause the modified files to carry prominent notices; it doesn't say the
modified files or loosely associated metadata.
Nit: carry and contain are not the same word.
Furthermore, carry has literally dozens of definitions -- none of
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation
that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to
be
On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:27:49 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
For that matter, the same applies to the currently-posted summary of
the GPL. At the moment, the summary just states that the GPL passes
the DFSG because it is explicitly listed in DFSG 10. It would be
highly preferable to compare the
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:01:41AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd say that sort of information shouldn't belong in the DFSG: IMHO it
would fit much better in informative pages such as
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
What do you think?
That's what a lot of people think. It's unclear
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 07:02:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Watch out before trying to get rid of it, though. The GPL has some parts
that would fail the DFSG without using DFSG#10 as an escape. For example,
the date changes restriction (2a) and output a GPL blurb (2c) would
probably both
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation
that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to
be included in the file itself) and does not prevent you from
modifying the work in any way
49 matches
Mail list logo
