Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
[a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and
[b] using some other license which happens to include terms from
On Jul 19, 2004, at 13:40, Branden Robinson wrote:
Provided the additional restriction did not fail the DFSG in and of
itself,
I don't see why such a license necessarily would fail the DFSG. We'd
have
to judge this sort of situation on a case by base basis.
Unless -- we want to assert that
Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in
Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:27:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion
and I do not believe it to be the consensus
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
[a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and
[b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL.
This thread
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:21:16AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Here's a recap of one point in subthread:
This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my
opinion. The license may not require a royalty
or other fee for such sale.
[...]
It's ok to say: here's the big
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
said it.
All right. Which licenses to we accept as DFSG-free even though they
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider minor?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In the context of GPL compatability [which I think the
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
snip
Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
exist today?
Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think Steve's guess at likely interpretations isincorrect but have
very low confidence in my opinion.
We're all entitled to our opinions. :)
It seems like the best course of action at this point is to try and seek
clarification
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
s/^A /A free /
Very succinctly put, though.
- Matt
On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose
that
GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
I think restrospectively justifying a Holier than Stallman tag with
such a decision is
Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider minor?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In the
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
s/^A /A free /
Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there are
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that
GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
I think restrospectively justifying a Holier than Stallman tag with
such a
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek
Branden wrote:
It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would
be a conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid,
or that
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:26:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
You should provide a more significant objection than your modifications
have value.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it's an insigificant objection.
I do.
The license
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
in consultation with Best
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would be a
conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone
having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license,
resulting in a
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
can make them?
Because potential complexity of the boundaries is
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:13:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Autocrat and dictator are roughly synonymous and just refer to
systems of government where all power stems from a single individual;
the UK was an autocracy for much of its history without individual
freedom being significantly
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
I think this would actually bring debian
You should provide a more significant objection than your modifications
have value.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it's an insigificant objection.
I do.
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on that, you
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips
Branden wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
Regarding the concept of taking the copyright of code: it's what the
FSF have been doing since 1992 with Emacs. The difference here is
that if you feel strongly about it, you get to keep your copyright.
The FSF asks
Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about how best to
re-word it to reflect their
Andrew Stribblehill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about
On Jul 1, 2004, at 03:12, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
[...]
What is
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences. I
don't know if it's
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
...
This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. The license
may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. It does not seem
reasonable to me to
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 08:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
half-formed in my head for a little
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:05:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The above did not get much discussion; I'd just like to AOL it, and
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
Yes, this will vary by jurisdiction, but
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: If
a contract-based license restricts
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
In that case, would you consider the clause Free if it said when
the author of such alterations submits them for inclusion in the
work? That would make such assignment entirely voluntary.
Possibly. I'm not entirely enthused about clauses like this
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches
to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the
condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing
the patches could not be considered as
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches
to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the
condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing
the
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences. I
don't know if it's been raised before, but I think it bears discussion:
A licence
* Michael Poole:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
--
Current mail filters:
Florian Weimer writes:
* Michael Poole:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices)
#
# This work is made available to you under the terms of Version
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright
O Xoves, 10 de Xuño de 2004 ás 16:51:06 -0400, Michael Poole escribía:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that
the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter
consideration?
I
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What is the impact of the third
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What is
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
This is a GPL-incompatible
50 matches
Mail list logo
