On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
disclaims warranty.
That's not
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself. I will cheerfully admit to being wrong
when I've been convinced of such, and if I feel
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
and this is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad, bad hair, obnoxious attitude.
Back
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG. I merely thought that the DFSG exists to
codify these concepts and make them more concrete. Sort of like a
checklist so we don't
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You said earlier that you *must* have a contract to disclaim, as if a
non-contractual disclaimer is everywhere void. Now you recognize the
truth, it seems, that a non-contractual disclaimer is, somewhere,
sometimes, a useful thing. Since Free Software in
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:00:23PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Your stretch relies upon a single act being both an act of distributing the
*modified* program and of invoking it interactively.
I see no reason this can't be true of some programs. However, I do not
*rely* on this (see below).
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
reply at this point. ]
The response you are quoting was
Stephen Ryan writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad,
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:03:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If they don't accept, fine! They don't accept--and then they are
restricted by the copyright law (NOT by the license) and any further
copying is then illegal.
s/is then illegal/may be infringing/, damnit. :)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you notice, I have actually *listened* to you (gasp!!!) and have
dropped that line of argumentation.
While such a change of position may be of great moment to you, other
people may have overlooked it in this very large
ke, 05-03-2003 kello 18:10, Russell Nelson kirjoitti:
The boards of SPI and OSI are of the opinion (or at least have
been) that there should be one functional definition of open source
and free software.
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, section 9, Software in the
Public Interest,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. According to
web.archive.org, they seem to have been added to the GNU website sometime
between December 1998, and April 1999.
That's interesting; I had no idea it took the FSF
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
It might be more fruitful to provide affirmative evidence for the
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG.
The Four
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
change your mind.
Your only purpose here
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four essential human
freedoms.
As I recall, Debian postdates
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is this a joke?
Asks someone whose wit is of great renown.
FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's.
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward
to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:47:27PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your only purpose here seems to be to persuade others, with a kind of
intransigence and a refusal to allow yourself to be persuaded.
... and you were
Tim Spriggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
virii exempt :)
virii is not a word.
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be permitted. One modification that
must be
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but a click-wrap implementation is not a mere license notice, but
a fair bit more, isn't it?
The current state of the art, in terms of ensuring license compliance,
says that you have to ensure that both parties realize that they're
entering into
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Right. That's for licenses which are contractual. Free software
licenses are unilateral grants of permission, for which it is
unimportant to certify acceptance.
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract,
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Right. That's for licenses which are contractual. Free software
licenses are unilateral grants of permission, for which it is
unimportant to certify acceptance.
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:38:52AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If
you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this
software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
disclaims warranty.
That's not true.
What's not true? That there is a free
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
reply at this point. ]
The response you are quoting was made on the same day I received
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only code which
announces anything that you're not allowed to remove is the
copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.
There are four things that you are not allowed to remove:
1. copyright
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:50:38PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only code which
announces anything that you're not allowed to remove is the
copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.
There
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite liberal stretching of the term
interactive to
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights to
executing computer processes.
Aparently, this will happen in 2053:
Berne, the Finn said, ignoring him. Berne. It's got limited
Swiss citizenship under their equivalent of the Act
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights
to executing computer processes.
virii exempt :)
.-=| Tim Spriggs |=-.
(||) Systems Admin.
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've no doubt. Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have
unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian?
It doesn't need to.
I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to
point out that you're applying
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed
software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're
interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but
what do you do when someone comes along and
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be permitted. One modification that
must be permitted is to modify the software removing the click-wrap
implementation.
Thomas
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 08:47:29PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be permitted. One
Sam Hartman wrote:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
Russell edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
Russell think he was wrong about the intent of the
Russell no-discrimination
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people.
Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to
arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson
John wrote:
But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two
documents that except for a few places are identical; please
make a lot of changes to yours
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL 2(c)
This clause of the GPL is still something of a wart. Perhaps a future
revision of the DFSG would clarify that GPL software is only free if it
*doesn't* take advantage of this clause.
I agree that it is a wart, but your solution wouldn't
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen writes:
Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
say one
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:09:03AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
So ... you agree that any interesting license discriminates. You
Discrimination is inherent in most everything; as it is simply the act of
noting differences. We can note differences between our opinions on
licensing, car style,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
... and the OSD must become more
John Goerzen writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like
OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:47, Russell Nelson wrote:
Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or
don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you
give up on some things in order to get something else you want more.
Yes! Now you have
John Goerzen writes:
The DFSG does not simply say No discrimination; it says no discrimination
against persons or groups. While you may enjoy your over-legalistic
interpretation, a reasonable person understands that this clause does not
mean to reject every possible license.
Exactly my
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several
On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen writes:
Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:47:11AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing
unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or
rather, to recommend
Steve Langasek writes:
What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more
like the OSD?
Let me rephrase what you said. I want to be clear that I expect
Debian to change the DFSG, and OSI to change the OSD. Both documents
can be improved, but they should be improved to
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:49:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of free
software: the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal,
and RMS's definition.
This seems to be the root of the issue: the DFSG is _not_ a definition.
It
Simon Law wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
[...]
the DFSG does not prohibit a license from requiring a specific form of
affirmative assent known as click-wrap. Our recently-passed change to
the OSD fixes that problem.
I fail to see how a
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
1) Surely you've seen the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, where
the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front are
constantly at loggerheads? While the real power are the Romans, of
course. I needn't elaborate.
Perhaps I'm dense, or
I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your behavior. It's not something to engender
confidence.
Jason
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:46:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:46:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Jason McCarty writes:
Anyway, the only reason xsane is still dfsg-free is that the EULA _could_
be removed. If the license prohibited removal, then it wouldn't be
dfsg-free.
You guys are funny. You're like the temperance
Mark Rafn writes:
I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition
rather than a set of guidelines.
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian. But that is a right
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to
point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner.
Yes; that's why the DFSG is the Debian Free Software _Guidelines_. It's
written to require
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
Take out the RD and personal use grants. Does it still comply with
the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to
make the software DFSG-nonfree?
Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
On 27-Jan-03, 23:49 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Undoubtedly you pointed to the
DFSG or to case law, or else you made a new precedent. But when you
make a new precedent, you have to say exactly why, and justify it.
Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups
get different levels of freedom -- then it is not DFSG-free.
Count me in among those who disagree. As
On 27-Jan-03, 12:57 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
guidelines. Why do you want two?
We don't want two, we have only one.
You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have.
We sure do have. Debian is a volunteer organzation that
Why are you CC'ing me when the Debian list policy is not to?
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian. But that is
Henning Makholm writes:
It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for
themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but
it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
And yet,
On 28-Jan-03, 10:02 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily
excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with
not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it
disappoints them
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:02, Russell Nelson wrote:
And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language
of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an
elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and
may decide anything they
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 08:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially,
everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude
software from Debian.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:21:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
John Goerzen writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:08:15PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Further, a case could be made that it violates clase 5 (No
discrimination
against persons or groups) because it discriminates
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:38:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must
not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups
get different levels of freedom --
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
one of the freedoms required by the DFSG is
that everybody has the same freedoms.
That is not a freedom anymore than existence is a perfection.
My freedom is what I am allowed to do. If there is something I am not
allowed to do, I am no less free
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that
except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to
yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much
sense to me,
John Goerzen writes:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:21:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Every license that has any interesting terms discriminates. The GPL
discriminates against people who don't want to give away their code.
The APSL discriminates against people who don't want to give
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
source licenses should be run past
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 12:27:49AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
It's not a matter of being able to remove objectionable terms from the
license; it's a matter of any license that contains such a term already
failing to meet the requirements of the DFSG as we understand them,
because the
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nelson nelson@crynwr.com :
and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain
unlicensed software.
strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian...
+
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~€ cat /usr/share/doc/abuse-frabs/copyright
This package was
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:16:56AM +0100, Lo'oRiS il Kabukimono wrote:
and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain
unlicensed software.
strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian...
There's lots of public domain software in Debian; this was
Lo'oRiS il Kabukimono writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nelson nelson@crynwr.com :
and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain
unlicensed software.
strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian...
I've no doubt. Still, where in the DFSG does
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have
unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian?
It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what
one *can't* have in Debain. Since none of those apply to
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have
unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian?
It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what
one *can't* have in Debain.
Steve Langasek writes:
Hmm, I think there are two separate issues here: there's the EULA
itself, which almost certainly violates the FSF's freedom zero (the
freedom to use the software, even if the user doesn't agree with the
license for redistribution and modification);
But the user does
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed
software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're
interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but
what do you do when someone
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Foo on that. The DFSG says The license must allow modifications and
derived works... If it's public domain, there *is* no license.
If it's public domain, the license is anyone can do whatever he wants
to it.
The DFSG has a problem.
I think you
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
It doesn't say so clearly, but anyone who asks nicely (and sometimes
also people who ask not-so-nicely) will get explained to them how
click-wrap requirements are
Henning Makholm writes:
Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of
guidelines. Why do you want two?
We don't want two, we have only one.
You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do not carry the day.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com |
Henning Makholm writes:
A licence that enforces a click-wrap fails to grant the
freedom of redistibution and modification that is explicitly required
by the DFSG.
What term of the DFSG says this? Should we go through the DFSG point
by point?
Free Redistribution
The license of a
Steve Langasek writes:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity
to mean what *they* want?
... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never
represented, *anywhere*,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
writing to you today in that stead.
In another message, you asked if there were some substantive differences
between the OSD and the DFSG. I can say, yes there
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
