Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? not according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Someone should

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread Gervase Markham
Steve Langasek wrote: I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually, regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree currently claim. I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 9/10/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually, regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree currently claim. I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread MJ Ray
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to some companies. So I think this clause is a non-issue. Thanks to all for the explanations. I never

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread Gervase Markham
Michael K. Edwards wrote: Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved? Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:48:54 +0300 Henri Sivonen wrote: MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? DFSG-free? The MPL? I wouldn't say so, based on what I recall... :-( -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)

fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless tangents and more immune to revisionism by the

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:44:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) Version 1.0 * 1. Definitions. [...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread MJ Ray
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [control definition] The intent here is to avoid a party to this license spinning choice assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination. If the screwing has

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Joe Smith
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License. For legal entities, You includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote: [...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License. For legal entities, You includes any entity which controls, is

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Humberto Massa Guimarães
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? not according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Matthew Garrett
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? not according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Someone should really file a removal request against Mozilla. (No, Mozilla is not

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right? not according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Someone should

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Matthew Garrett
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet) I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually, regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:36:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet) I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,

Re: fresh review of: CDDL

2005-09-09 Thread Joe Smith
Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote: [...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License.