Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:11:57 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Anyway, we aren't going anywhere. I don't think this has any real
impact on my opinion of the QPL, anyway, though it may to others.
Nor on mine...
I still think that QPL#3b is non-free.
Add the other issues that have larger consensus...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:07:21 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the more
permissive license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see
such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them
$10k or so, and you get a
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:07:36 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and
any other licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD
licence.
What do you find non-free in this ?
It compels me to grant upstream a right
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040826 01:32]:
You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
Which is GPL v2, nothing else. When I receive a program dual licenced
under GPL and BSD, I can choose which I want
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
terms. If control of the FSF had
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040826 01:32]:
You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2 includes section 9.
The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
of avoiding future versions of the GPL.
So either:
[a] You are ignorant of the terms of
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2 includes section 9.
The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
of avoiding future
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Interesting point. Still it would cause problem to upstream to integrate
your
patch, because he cannot easily merge a GPL 2 only patch into a GPL 2 or
later
original work, since it would obviously force him to drop
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2 includes section 9.
The terms in section 9 do not offer
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
GPL 9 is there so that I *can*
release mine under GPL v2 or later and he can then integrate it into
his, because there's explicit definition of what this means and how it
works with the rest of the GPL.
That's one of the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Interesting point. Still it would cause problem to upstream to integrate
your
patch, because he cannot easily merge a GPL 2 only patch into a GPL 2 or
later
original work,
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:31:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a
program which is GPL v2 and later.
That's not a problem, because GPL v2 alone includes (via either option
in section 9) later versions.
GPL v2 alone excludes
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing
I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
analogous to GPL v2 alone as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
What do you mean that's not
I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
analogous to GPL v2 alone as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Section 9 of the GPLv2 is quite
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
analogous to GPL v2 alone as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole
so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the
exclusion of others.
False. Section 6 says:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:43:49PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Er, section 6 isn't the copyleft in the GPL. It's the public
license part. It only grants rights to *the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:14:57PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
FYI, the reply from the FSF I received was essentially that yes, you can
make modifications to a v2 or newer GPL program and place them under a
v2 only GPL and the result is compatible; that works exercising GPL#9
is not intended
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
your patch to it P(A). Then there's the version the initial developer
releases, B=A+P(A). He releases that to his
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 9.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't see
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:25:18AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
your patch to it P(A). Then there's the
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
just a
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
just a possible one -- I hope this
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
any later version, you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or
But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
like you did.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, it doesn't. GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the program
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
other things, flamewars on -legal). That makes DFSG #10 a
Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the more
permissive license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see
such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them
$10k or so, and you get a permissive license. If you don't pay, you
get the QPL.
As far as
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
modifications under a more
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A
hyopthetical license that said This code is under a BSD-style license.
If you downloaded it via
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:48:13AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any
other
licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence.
What do you find non-free
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any
other
licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence.
What do you find non-free in this ?
It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if
you
publicly distribute it, or from one of the chain of people you distribute
it
too.
You mean
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if
you
publicly distribute it,
What do you find non-free in this ?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not grant
me. If that were symmetric, I would not object to this under DFSG 3.
Same condition exists with the GPL. [The GPL
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I felt that while the initial developer is bound to release the same
version under the QPL also, he/she is allowed to give to others
permission to modify the differently licensed version
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Section 9.
I don't see anything like that.
All I see is a common license from authors that software is available
under the GNU GPL, version 2 or any later version, at the discretion
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
your patch to it P(A). Then there's the version the initial developer
releases, B=A+P(A). He releases that to his dog under the QPL, so it's
available,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 9.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
No, I don't think they can do that. The permission grant in QPL#3b
says provided such versions remain available under these terms in
addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer, which only
seems to allow them to release it under
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
This does not mean they can't use the code in products not licensed
under the QPL. With clause #3b, contributors have to give them
permission to do so. The clause only means they can't take submitted
code for proprietary works and
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Section 9.
I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my license to
Emacs 21 with something else. The part which binds me, instead
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:51:51PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray
Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we considered free be
added. I can find no suggestion that the
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
other things, flamewars on -legal). That makes DFSG #10 a no-op. I
argue that DFSG #10 enforces a
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
modifications under a more permisive licence than the LGPL/QPL duo.
So, would a wording where
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:37:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
He doesn't have that permission himself. How can he possibly give it
to others? If he can't release just under the GPL, how can he allow
me to?
Well, it says any other license(s), not any other license(s) with the
additional clause
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
any other licenses in main that have that
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:51:01PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:49:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
Apparently Sven thinks that the realities
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So yes, the initial author doesn't have to respect a license of the
modifier unless he wants to make further modifications to the patch.
Well, you are equally unrestricted as long
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:34:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The only thing DFSG 4 says is that patch clauses are acceptable. It
effectively means Modification by patches is equivilent to modification
by other means. Any other license issue is
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This I can make sense of, and it bears no relation to any sense of the
phrase derivative work with which I am familiar. Neither does it
relate to the modifications of which the QPL speaks.
So you claim that once the original work incorporate a patch,
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It's explicitly a compromise; it does not imply that Debian must allow not
only patch clauses, but heavily restricted patches, or that restrictions
on patches must be regarded without respect to the fact that it's pushing
a
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It says nothing of the sort. The only thing DFSG 4 says relating to
patches is that requiring that modifications be patches is acceptable.
The only thing DFSG 4 says is that You must be able
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:58:20 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:54:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I don't think QPL#3b requires the other licenses to carry an
attached additional restriction such as must be additionally
available under the terms of the QPL. The
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I felt that while the initial developer is bound to release the same
version under the QPL also, he/she is allowed to give to others
permission to modify the differently licensed version with no must be
additionally available
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
any other licenses in main that have that
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
There were demands that I point at the DFSG, and I did so. Now you
want a practical example. Here's some attempts at one:
[...]
* I can't fork the code, even distributing as
But there's *no* license under which I can submit changes to Sven that
he can then distribute. He can't grant the 3b license to INRIA,
because I hold copyright on the patch!
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody
which permits me to grant a license like this to the initial
developer -- granting new licenses is
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody
which permits me to grant a license like this to the initial
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:35:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But there's *no* license under which I can submit changes to Sven that
he can then distribute. He can't grant the 3b license to INRIA,
because I hold copyright on the patch!
I still don't understand your argument. If you
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody
which permits me to grant a license like this to the initial
developer -- granting new licenses is something
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:34:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
My argument against patch clauses with additional restrictions on the
patches is not in conflict with DFSG#4. I believe it's a completely
reasonable interpretation that while DFSG#4 allows patch clauses, it does
not allow
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So yes, the initial author doesn't have to respect a license of the
modifier unless he wants to make further modifications to the patch.
Well, you are equally unrestricted as long as you don't modify the original
upstream code, are you not ? So this is
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following Sven's interpretation of QPL 3b's wording under
this license. That is, rather than reading it as permitted by this
license, reading it as distribution of modifications themselves
licensed under the QPL.
I've been mostly
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following Sven's interpretation of QPL 3b's wording under
this license. That is, rather than reading it as permitted by this
license, reading it as distribution of modifications themselves
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:51:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
Hence, they can't additionally release it under the GPL, because the
software retains a restriction must be additionally available under
the terms of the QPL, and the GPL forbids that restriction. They
couldn't quite release it under
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or
the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to
redistribute derived works under different terms than those I
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been mostly ignoring Sven. I don't find this argument terribly
interesting.
OK, so you're ignoring the maintainer of the package in question, you
don't think people who view the DFSG as a compromise
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:54:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I don't think QPL#3b requires the other licenses to carry an attached
additional restriction such as must be additionally available under the
terms of the QPL. The recipients of the differently licensed version
have the rights
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's no way
for me to make XEmacs, which is FSF
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A
hyopthetical license that said This code is under a BSD-style license.
If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:05PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary
software
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a
non-original-author. But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original
author would use it.
Indeed, so by
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
So you're saying, I think, that any
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:05PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
No, the same thing does not happen with the GPL. Trolltech can take
contributions under the QPL and include it both in the free X11
version and the (very expensive) Windows version. If you tried to do
that with the GPL, you would
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of
those
correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that each one
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:51:51PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees.
I think the DFSG#1's may not
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:15:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, I really am lost here. Is your argument:
a) compulsion of provision of freedoms (as in the GPL, for instance) is
non-free, or
b) compulsion of provision one set of freedoms to some people and a
different set to others is
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
At least we understand your sanity standard now ;)
It's fairly internally consistent...
Raul remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private
archives
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
Apparently Sven thinks that the realities of debian release management
is allowed to override the Social Contract. Sven is mistaken.
I will be mistaken once there is a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of
those
correspond to a derived work of
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or
the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to
redistribute derived works under different terms than those I received
myself; DSFG#3.
I'm still not sure
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
