-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream may have died, and if you can't
distribute
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
There might be a case where we are seeing a common clause in licenses
where there is significant belief on -legal that it might make a
license non-free but it cannot be clearly, explicitly (unanimously?)
tied back to existing
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:25:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such
a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that
explicit. That way we
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:50:22PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I'm not sure I agree here. I feel like the DFSG has special casing of
individual clauses scattered throughout the document, such as 6 and 8, and
that
adding a choice of venue clause guideline would fit with those just fine. That
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:11:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is
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. If
Matthew Palmer writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am against it in principle. Having them subscribe to the debian-*-changes
mailing list is an active effort of their part, while we willingly push data
to them.
So you're now not OK with the QPL's
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 in
making that decision. All
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 in
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:01:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Poole writes:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
we're already doing for crypto-in-main
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a practical consideration, if the requirement
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
licence, and they are other who don't.
Neither
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:01:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I apparently just forgot it in the flood; thanks for pointing it out
again. Of course, that definition would mean that DFSG1 doesn't cover a
license that says you must distribute a dollar along with any copy, but
that's a minor
Glenn Maynard writes:
The DFSG clearly needs to be tightened up and clarified, then. Or is
the point of debate on -legal simply to justify the existence of
-legal?
If you're going to argue that the DFSG should be changed from a set of
guidelines (which, by definition, require interpretation
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
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 arbitrary termination
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:33:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm really beginning to lose patience here - just about everybody here
seems quite prepared to debate licenses forever, but doesn't want to
actually _do_ anything about them...
Then please take up the work: make a suggested
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
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. If not, we clearly as a
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
If you think we should be trying to interpret things like must not
discriminate, I'm not sure we have much at all that could be
grounds for consensus, to be honest.
You feel that any amount of effective discrimination inherit in a
license is DFSG
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
security agencies, at least this is how i understood it. This include my
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:04:30PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I also recall licenses that prohibited use in various types of weapons.
For that matter, there is also the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source
Software License Agreement (HESSLA), as described by the GNU project on
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:23:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL.
I suspect Sven thinks--or hopes we'll believe--that one person disagreeing
with consensus two
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:59:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
draft of the QPL summary,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:19:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
weightings. Since these are mostly determined by personal opinion, it
suggests that there isn't a
On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being
non-free.
I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move
things forward. ;-) In any case, it doesn't matter at this point what
the numbers
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:07:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-23 08:47:42 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be fair, there are two people arguing against the QPL being
non-free.
I think there are more than that, but not all are helping to move
things forward. ;-) In
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:54:29PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
or giving away the software ...
I believe may not restrict is the operative phrase; this is a restriction.
I think we need to include the rest of
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:05:13PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:19:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
weightings. Since these are mostly
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
licence, and they are other who don't.
Neither would I.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Where in it says you have to ?
Where in it says that you don't? For my part, I can't see how either
interpretation is more plausible than the other.
In this sort
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:08:05AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:54:29PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
or giving away the software ...
I believe may not restrict is the operative phrase;
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it is evident. The section 6 covers how you distribute these code
linking with the library. IF
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:01:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, it is evident. The section 6
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Anyway, notice
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:00:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM
[ 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 of
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
In the end, we still come back to the fact that we're dealing with a
set of guidelines that needs to be thoughtfully applied to a
license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test,
where X is free, and Y is non
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 be said.
Not for
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
distributed source code be provided to the government.
Except that there are no such governments.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
distributed source code be
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:06:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
them! The BSD license is fair (a term invented for use here): it
offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
licence, and they are other who don't.
Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would
want to take the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help.
I don't think that the QPL
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
upstream
with every change
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
otherwise. For that
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything
other than the code they cover.
I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1]
But regardless, there isn't a requirement
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because
it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case,
a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional
permission
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
the DFSG? If you need
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such
thing.
Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action
you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still
working on: a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of
dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands
who have a binary CD but not a source one.
If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to avoid this
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
* 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 that may clash with
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven
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 of
persons.
allows for _any_ discrimination?
None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:59:04AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:38:23AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of dissidents.=20
Which set?
The ones who want to be able to give binaries to people when they don't
necessarily trust them with the
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
distributed source code be provided to the government.
Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that
actually happens.
If
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:15:26AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Why shaky? When an clause results in discriminating against people,
groups or fields of endeavor (of course within the limits of free
software[1]) then the licence is non-free. Why should we make
a difference between explicit
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
upstream
with every change done should
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in
a
newspaper is regarded as effective notification if it meets some
In international
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in
debian
mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame.
Other people succeed in remaining polite after
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve this.
Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, you say you got legal advice. But you don't say what it was!
Not even over there. The specifics of that advice make it useless.
Was it just for your jurisdiction? Well, choice-of-law makes that
OK.
Well, in any case, it
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
otherwise. For that matter, do you see
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:31:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, i wonder if this is as dramatic as it seems, since after all it only
furthers the distribution of the source code, and it is only fair that the
original author, whose work was freely given away so that the work linked with
the
Don Armstrong writes:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's no consistent and coherent argument going on, other than a
sort of fuzzy We think it's not free, and we can sort of point at
these two things and handwave and say they cover them.
DFSG 5 No Discrimination Against
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This word discriminate - I don't think it means what you think it
means. 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
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
I do. More to the point,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This word discriminate - I don't think it means what you think it
means. All users of the software are given the same license. The
license itself does not
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of
any license that actually explicitly said may not be used for bioweapons
research, clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less
direct arguments tend to reduce to
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of
explicit
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
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:59, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
it danced around,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Don Armstrong writes:
I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I feel
it should apply to effective discrimination as well.
So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
hostile governments.
Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you,
just fine you or put you in jail (e.g. DMCA). But every
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results
in a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your
modifications.
So would a license that required you to redistribute any
1 - 100 of 374 matches
Mail list logo
