Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
However, linking a work that uses the Library with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a work that uses the
library. The executable
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:09:48PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I had thought from previous GPL discussions that distribute the source
and let users link it was not a reasonable way to sidestep license
compatibility issues, because the source was still a derived work. Does
this mean
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS,
contributory infringement).
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
people *how* to violate
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying
use this to get around the GPL certainly would not be.
Do you think there's a
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:58:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying
use this to get around
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't think you mean derivative in the same way the USC 17 means
derivative, and I *really* don't think you mean it in the same way
Berne does. The idea that influence grants copyright is not common --
indeed, it's not in
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
That's debatable. If
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
Or helpful to users.
Users who want to write
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you
don't actually distribute GNU
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you
don't actually
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
That's debatable. If
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:27:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
distribution
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
Or helpful to users.
I consider it to be neither. In my case, I would have absolutely no
interest in taking the software proprietary, so
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
Or helpful to users.
Users who want to write proprietary software can figure out for
themselves which software
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:27:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
distribution upstream clause, there
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a
problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive
license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an
all-permissive
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial
developer,
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the GPL we seem to have accepted the premise that a license
may require all modifications to be distributed under the same
license as the original work itself.
That also seems like a reasonable conclusion. An interesting
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
permissions grant. Upstream could
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That things get particularly weird with the copyright regime when patents
are held to affect the same works as copyrights is an indictment of the
practice of both patenting and copyrighting software, not an indictment of
our license analysis practices.
I
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that to be a fee consistent with the expansion of Free Software.
In order to distribute modified binaries, I have to licence my source to the
recipient as well. That has clear freedom-enhancing properties (Now With
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a
problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive
license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an
all-permissive license is obnoxious, but
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that to be a fee consistent with the expansion of Free Software.
In order to distribute modified binaries, I have to licence my source to the
recipient as well. That has
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial
developer, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
permissions grant. Upstream could subsume it into their
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only
have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the
all-permissive license to the original
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only
have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm still
interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of the QPL
discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly important to
actually bring to the project; they keep coming up again in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more fundamental basis, abitrary termination clauses are odious and
offensive to freedom because we are not free if we are just waiting for the
hammer to fall. One of things you give up when you decide to share your
work with the FLOSS community is
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
QPL.
That only comes automatically
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:40:57AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Finally, the spirit of the QPL, as from their annotated license[1] appears to
be very much in favor of Free software. Section 6c's annotation states:
This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:38:33PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:23:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It's that last bit which is non-free. If they did something like the
FSF, and asked for copyright assignment, that would be free.
If they did something
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution
to him, not promises to obey the license.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
For example, the QPL's demand for a permissive license for the initial
author is a fee. The license has value, and I may not make
modifications without granting it. I incur a cost, loss of control.
The recipient
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In contrast, if the copyright holder declares his right to terminate the
license based on a termination clause, there really is no arguing with it.
At all. It's not just a lawsuit, it's give up and go home.
Which is the
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
QPL.
That only comes automatically with the QPL; with the GPL, I can work
in a small group with no risk that it
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution
to him, not promises to obey the license.
Actually it was MJ Ray who applied the
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their
software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe,
someday, I'll fail to note my changes at the top
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: The license may not
require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
What is this royalty or other fee? I claim it is the normal
definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale
transaction. A normal
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:03:22AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What is this royalty or other fee? I claim it is the normal
definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale
transaction. A normal definition in English law is from Dunlop v
Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847: An act or
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a
GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on
the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the
right to pass on further
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:13:38PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The developer hasn't promised to obey the license. I distribute
software written by others all the time. I'm not sued by them because
they licensed me to do this under the GPL, but I wouldn't even have to
know about the
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that this is bad, but does DFSG 3 forbid this? Perhaps it
does, but only if you assume some kind of implicit substitution where
the modifier replaces the author in the same terms. I don't think
that's a particularly natural way to read
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:13:38PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The developer hasn't promised to obey the license. I distribute
software written by others all the time. I'm not sued by them because
they licensed me to do this under the GPL, but
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their
software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe,
someday, I'll fail to note my changes at the top of every file!
Bwahaha.
And if I ever
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to try and formulate the asymmetry criterion you
might want to consider the case of a licence L that forced
everyone who distributes a modified version to make their
modifications available under a BSD
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
would say Get that program out!)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You'd be going against Debian policy, then.
In what sense? We've done this
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
would say Get that program out!)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You'd be going against Debian policy,
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference
to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
I just explained to you how it makes a difference, as did several
others. The
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively
guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the
DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR
and you convince the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I received the
software. The author used a license which gets him a
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived
works, and must allow them to be
On 2004-07-15 13:19:07 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Find some arguments that
don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
than just handwave madly to convince me about the fee one) and I'll
listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
Why not? Again, what practical
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
non-free licenses for free ones. The patent
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm arguing that I don't believe them to be obviously non-DFSG-free,
which is not the same thing.
It seems so obvious and self-evident to me that it's actually difficult
for me to argue it.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging
On 2004-07-14 00:21:30 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] RMS has claimed that failing to comply with the GPL means
that your license is effectively terminated, even if you cease doing
so.
Even an accidental breach of the GPL could result in the copyright
holder contending
75 matches
Mail list logo
