On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:10:17PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
Ean, I expostulated one perspective in the following message:
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
The difference is that a guideline, as we use the term, is an
*internal* tool. We do not pretend that the guideline exhausts the
meaning of free,
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate ways. Like it or not,
we're stuck with each other.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
You misunderstand
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:26:42PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under the same conditions as non-modified versions. It says that you
have to be able to redistribute under the same license.
boggle
Huh?
A license is allowed
Sorry, I'm still catching up. I found myself short an Internet
connection at this year's Mardi Gras so I'm wading through a few hundred
emails.
I'm not prepared to respond to this at length in this message but I will
summarize some thoughts. I'm in the process of preparing a full document
Ean,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:12:57PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
The underlying reason I see an advantage to the community encouraging a
unified definition of Free Software is government legislation. It is
fairly obvious to me that neither patents nor Free Software are going to
go away
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The underlying reason I see an advantage to the community encouraging a
unified definition of Free Software is government legislation. It is
fairly obvious to me that neither patents nor Free Software are going to
go away anytime soon. As a result we
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, a license is a contract. When you accept the GPL, you are
entering into a contract. There's an offer (distribute the software
and comply with the GPL), an acceptance (the act of distribution), and
consideration (the benefit of having one's
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
The DFSG #3 doesn't require
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible to
work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal judge
licenses, and have OSI
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible
to work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal
judge licenses, and have OSI rubber-stamp your decision. In order
to do that, though, you'd need to modify the OSD so
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for #3.
No. A license may treat different
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:49:52PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas, a license is a contract.
No, it is not (necessarily). People can contract with respect to all
sorts of things, but the scope of copyright is explicitly limited under
Title 17 of the United States Code, and likely in other
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
don't think the OSD should get any votes in the process. Sorry, but
you all have not
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 13:50, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The modified software can be modified by the recipient only if he
tellss the public at large. This is the same condition.
So you are now saying that the license imposes a restriction on
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Let me point you to the plain language of 17 USC? I am quoting for
you the relevant section of 106:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Note that it does not say:
(2) to dsitribute derivative works based upon the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
don't think the OSD should get any votes in the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't,
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under the same conditions as non-modified versions.
3. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.
The consensus on debian-legal that
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with relying on human judgement is that it can be
arbitrary. If Microsoft came to Debian and said Would you accept
this software licensed under the Microsoft Public License? would you
be able to make a judgement which is not only not
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:52:56AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
these terms, it complies with the logical and of
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:29:37AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
The problem with relying on human
Glenn Maynard writes:
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless requested.
I do
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:23:04AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I guess you want CC's. If you won't add an MFT header, at least say you
want them; Debian list policy is to not CC people on replies unless
requested, and some of us do follow this policy. :)
Debian list policy is to not
Hi Russell Nelson,
Glenn Maynard writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00448.html
Thanks.
Why not change the DFSG?
There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG
as a set of human guidelines, rather than a word-strict
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
controls.
FYI, the IBM Common Public License [1], which has been approved for
Debian, has a similar clause
No need to CC me, I'm on the list.
Henning Makholm writes:
I dimly recall that the test we applied in the IBM was: If the patent
licence grant and its associated termination clause were deleted from
the license, would it then be free? The answer was yes, and the
license should not become
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to. IT would
probably be a minimum of six months or so before we can sort these
out.
Sam Hartman writes:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to.
That's an explanation of why it's hard to change the
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Sam Hartman writes:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Why not change the DFSG?
Currently we have some organizational issues that make it rather
difficult for us to change the DFSG even if we want to.
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG is
intended to be taken literally and without interpretation, though. The
DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by human judgement.
This is the defining difference, to me, between the two documents. OSD is
a definition,
Mark Rafn writes:
Are there specific divides among the community you seek to address?
Mostly the fact that some people get grumpy when we change the OSD.
They express the concern that our community not be split -- and that
everything which is open source is free software and vice-versa.
That's
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Rafn writes:
It might be advantageous to examine some software that is OSD-free
but not Debian-free, or vice versa,
Does anybody know of any such software?
If I remember correctly, there used to be a case with the Apple Public
Source
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.
The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for
DFSG-freedom
Different topic, differently reply.
Henning Makholm writes:
which mentions stopping *use*. We object to the notion that one needs
to to comply with specific terms simply to use the software (as
opposed to modifying or distributing it).
A warranty disclaimer applies to users of the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:26:39PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Mark Rafn writes:
It might be advantageous to examine some software that is OSD-free
but not Debian-free, or vice versa,
Does anybody know of any such software?
Any software under this license[0] is non-free but is OSI
Brian M. Carlson writes:
Any software under this license[0] is non-free but is OSI Certified Open
Source Software. I don't particularly remember why; you can search the
archives, but the consensus was that it was non-free.
Hmmm... license-discuss vetted it against the OSD, but debian-legal
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 12. Termination.
| 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will
| terminate:
...
| (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
| during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
Brian M. Carlson writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.
The consensus
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG is
intended to be taken literally and without interpretation, though. The
DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by human judgement.
Obviously. The question is how much augmenting is necessary. For
example, if you
Mark == Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG
is intended to be taken literally and without interpretation,
though. The DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by
human judgement.
Mark It could even be
Are you reading the list? I'll CC you on this message (deviating, for
the moment, from list policy of not CCing without request, and hiding
from Branden); if you don't want CCs, let me know. (If you do, you
should add a Mail-Followup-To header.)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:58:01PM -0500, Russell
Glenn Maynard writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00448.html
Thanks.
Why not change the DFSG?
There have been several good reasons explained for leaving the DFSG as a
set of human guidelines, rather than a word-strict block of legalese that
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
