Thanks for your answer.
GPL-compatibility would be an interesting point, but the problem that we
encounter is the GPL copyleft, which is very strong, due to the
interpretation of the FSF concerning derivative works. Moreover this
will be probably be enforced in GPL v3. It is annoying as soon
Fabian Bastin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just a little question.
If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends
the GPL v2.0.
What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply linking a
Hi,
Just a little question.
If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends the
GPL v2.0.
What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply linking a
module does not produce a derivative
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:36:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm reposting this as a draft (a) because it's been longer than I
planned before posting the new version, and (b) there are some changes
to this (e.g., including the fourth issue, and the way I ground the
first one) that I figured
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Item #5 External Deployment places distribution-like burdens on
deployment. E.g., when the Work is made available over a network
source must be distributed. This is a use restriction. While the
DFSG does not explicitly prohibit this, the
I'm reposting this as a draft (a) because it's been longer than I
planned before posting the new version, and (b) there are some changes
to this (e.g., including the fourth issue, and the way I ground the
first one) that I figured I'd give people a chance to object to. That
said, I don't expect
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 00:25]:
@ 22/04/2004 18:26 : wrote Andreas Barth :
Of course we can discriminate - like the GPL does.
no, no, the GPL discriminates what you do with the specific piece of
software you are redistributing or its derived works, not if you are or
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 01:25]:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we should think about language to add to the DFSG for this
kind of case?
I wish you luck. But we can never be sure that any formulation of the
DFSG will describe exactly the next kind
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program,
because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict
use in the first place. If the license demands that one accepts a
restriction on use as a condition on getting the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program,
because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict
use in the first place. If the license demands
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
My considered opinion is that DFSG #5 and #6 are horrible blunders
@ 23/04/2004 08:34 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
(about DFSG#5,6)
They're supposed to prohibit this sort of license clause (all real
examples, albeit not with precise wording):
- This software may not be used in nuclear power plants.
- This software may not be used by the US government.
- This
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
What do you think of the wording I suggested replacing #6 with?
Reproduced:
6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in
a
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:30:42PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), but
I'm uncomfortable using
Jeremy == Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG
Jeremy section for the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes
Jeremy to prohibiting use restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination
Jeremy Against Fields of
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 09:21:15AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a
business, from being used for genetic research,
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a problem. Is my
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a problem. Is my characterization of that
issue
@ 22/04/2004 16:31 : wrote Jeremy Hankins :
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a
* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040422 22:25]:
@ 22/04/2004 16:31 : wrote Jeremy Hankins :
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Humberto Massa wrote:
- Item #5 External Deployment places distribution-like burdens on
deployment. E.g., when the Work is made available over a network
source must be distributed. This amounts to forced distribution (DFSG
??).
This fails the desert island test;
@ 22/04/2004 18:26 : wrote Andreas Barth :
Of course we can discriminate - like the GPL does.
Cheers,
Andi
no, no, the GPL discriminates what you do with the specific piece of
software you are redistributing or its derived works, not if you are or
not distributing other software, that is
Andreas Barth wrote:
deploying software without providing source is a field of endeavour,
and we can't discriminate against it, or else no Debian user can produce
proprietary software.
Of course we can discriminate - like the GPL does.
The GPL discriminates against distribution without
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), but
I'm uncomfortable using that for this issue
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The discussion of The Affero License in the debian-legal archives may
be relevant.
The Affero license (or clause in a possible GPL 3, or whatever) actually
does restrict modification, because it says that you can't remove
quine-like code from the work.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor),
but
27 matches
Mail list logo
