Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
lose that in ASCII)
Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
conspicuous as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
John Halton wrote:
USA: NOTE: In all States in the USA (except Louisiana) all
disclaimers of warranty of merchantability or warranty of fitness for
any particular purpose must be conspicuous and are usually in boldface
or uppercase (capital) print or both.
This is based on the US case of
On Jan 9, 2008 12:20 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] because no lawyer on Earth knows [why] they aren't in mixed
case and everybody seems to think that everybody else knows and
that he's the only one that doesn't know and he was absent that
day in law school.
I
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] Unless separate permission is granted,
modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading
information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the
Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-09 11:44:19 +]:
The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a
modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of
what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
I think something went wrong with your sentence
On Jan 9, 2008 3:32 PM, Tristan Seligmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copyright when XSF license it is covering a specification and if a
modified work is something else, that doesn't change the nature of
what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
I think something went wrong with your
MJ Ray wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] Unless separate permission is granted,
modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading
information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the
Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:29:54 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
About Specification - I'm not bothered about that wording. I don't think
the arguments against using MIT/Expat hold water and I'm very unhappy
about XSF making a new licence, but at least work under this
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:29:54 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
About Specification - I'm not bothered about that wording. I don't think
the arguments against using MIT/Expat hold water and I'm very unhappy
about XSF making a new licence, but at least
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, but I have concluded that the solution is SHOUTY CAPITALS. It
works for others, it will work for us. I have more pressing matters
to attend to and can't spend more time on how exactly to make this
text conspicuous.
Okay. I'm arguing for this
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, but I have concluded that the solution is SHOUTY CAPITALS. It
works for others, it will work for us. I have more pressing matters
to attend to and can't spend more time on how exactly to make this
text conspicuous.
Okay.
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
lose that in ASCII)
Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
conspicuous as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
The capitalization follows that found
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
lose that in ASCII)
Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
conspicuous as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
The capitalization
Back in October, I posted about the licensing of XMPP specifications
produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/10/msg00055.html
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
freedom-friendly).
Thank you for the
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the permissions section is
essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
were
John Halton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The membership and Board of Directors of the XSF have discussed this
issue and we have consensus that we would like to change the
licensing so that it is Debian-friendly (and, more broadly,
freedom-friendly).
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the permissions section is
essentially a modified MIT license):
This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms
were not used?
**
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the permissions section is
essentially a modified MIT license):
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The proposed license talks about a Specification, which becomes a bit
problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
not a Specification anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a
summary description,
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the
following wording (for which the permissions section is
essentially a modified MIT
John Halton wrote:
Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement, so the board
may want to check their local legal position before finalising the
non-shouty version.
Well I notice that even the MIT License formats the
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement,
For what it's worth, the GPLv3 drafters researched the commonly-held
belief that SHOUTY CAPITALS are required for warranty disclaimers, and
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After seeing this claim made quite a few times on various Debian
lists, I was curious about the history for the claim above. The
earliest common attribution of software that I could find in a
computer context is to John Stukey:
Today the software
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
DFSG.
Thank you for actively pursuing this worthwhile change.
Although we need to complete
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Peter Saint-Andre:
Feedback is welcome.
Modified versions of the Specification should be plainly marked as such.
The resulting confusion is regularly feared in standardization-like
activities and often prompts restrictive copyright licenses, even though
there is
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
DFSG.
Thank you for actively
Joe Smith wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
On the contrary, software is more sensibly contrasted with
hardware, and covers any information in
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:13:10 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
No different from what happens when I put software onto a T-shirt.
I fail to see any problem in your example.
Suppose that a GPLv2'ed work is printed on a T-shirt:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
On the contrary, software is more sensibly contrasted with
hardware, and covers
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:25:35 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
This discrepancy has already been pointed out in bug #302417.
Could you help in solving that bug [4] ?
Sure, I'll contact the main jabberd 1.x developer.
Thanks for the clarifications, and for
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
On the contrary, software is more sensibly contrasted with
hardware, and covers any information in digital form — whether
that information happens to be interpreted as a program, an audio
stream, a text document, some other
Ben Finney wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
On the contrary, software is more sensibly contrasted with
hardware, and covers any information in digital form — whether
that information happens to be interpreted as a program, an audio
stream, a text
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
It would make your task of choosing a well-understood license
easier if you instead used softwaree in its original,
contrastted-with-hardware meaning, and not the narrow programs
only meaning that some retrofit to it.
That
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be no distinction between software program and
program in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
Of course, I immediately realise that program has plenty of meaning
outside of (and predating) the computer field. Consider this
Ben Finney writes:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be no distinction between software program and
program in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
Of course, I immediately realise that program has plenty of meaning
outside of (and predating) the computer
Ben Finney writes:
It would make your task of choosing a well-understood license easier
if you instead used softwaree in its original,
contrastted-with-hardware meaning, and not the narrow programs only
meaning that some retrofit to it.
After seeing this claim made quite a few times on
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be no distinction between software program and
program in the above. What other kind of programs are there?
Of course, I immediately realise that program has plenty of
Ben Finney writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most computer-literate English speakers in the world use software
to mean computer program rather than information
Perhaps, but that's not very relevant here. This discussion thread
relates to a highly technically-focussed forum and
* Peter Saint-Andre:
Feedback is welcome.
Modified versions of the Specification should be plainly marked as such.
The resulting confusion is regularly feared in standardization-like
activities and often prompts restrictive copyright licenses, even though
there is no real reason for them.
--
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change
to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the
DFSG.
Thank you for actively pursuing this worthwhile change.
Although we need to complete some due diligence and
Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
The
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:42:54 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
I would encourage the adoption of the unmodified Expat/MIT license:
http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
I forgot to add the usual disclaimers:
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
--
It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
The specifications in question, called XMPP Extension Protocols (XEPs),
define the
45 matches
Mail list logo
