John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG
9).
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
It seems to
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Kern Sibbald wrote:
[...]
Hmmm. I don't think I have ever seen the Postfix license, but someone
else has probably picked it up, and applying it more globally is
almost surely something I have added.
In any case, I have now deleted that clause from
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
*trademark*
unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
-- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that
intellectual property right does
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its
license.
From
http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup
Termination for IP or Patent Action:
In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this
license shall
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
*trademark*
unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
-- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is
that
intellectual property right does
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software
(DFSG 9).
I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
I
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suppose this is a possibility, but with the current license, this
shouldn't be possible, though I admit I hadn't thought about it. I doubt,
however, if this is a real possibility, since who has the means to publish
paper copies and give them away free?
Two
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suppose this is a possibility, but with the current license, this
shouldn't be possible, though I admit I hadn't thought about it. I
doubt,
however, if this is a real possibility, since who has the means to
publish
paper copies and give them away free?
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free.
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at
John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider other
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license.
From
http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup
Termination for IP or Patent Action:
In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this
license shall terminate
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license.
Thanks for mentioning this, Nathanael. I had read the license, but had
assumed (incorrectly, I guess) that Jose had already evaluated it here
before
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect that this will not be considered a reasonable clause by most
people on debian-legal. It effectively says As long as you use Bacula,
you grant everyone in the world the right to use any or your copyrighted
work in any GPLed program, and you grant
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9).
I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
Who
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:27:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is an additional restriction beyond those in the GPL. Therefore this
renders the license GPL-incompatible. Which is a major problem since other
parts of
On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:54:46 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its
license.
Thanks for pointing this terrific clause out.
From
http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello debian-legal,
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free.
Hello debian-legal,
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello debian-legal,
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Yes, this is correct, but with the nuance, that I would be very happy to
Hello debian-legal,
I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
author of Bacula and its manual. The current manual, which has a
license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
DFSG-free. However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he
doesn't want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions
of the manual.
Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and
meet Kern's requirements? Would the FDL
On Mon, 15 May 2006, John Goerzen wrote:
Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
manual.
Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
Kern's requirements?
I hope not.
31 matches
Mail list logo
