FSF and Debian folks,
Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you
to resolve this by yourselves. As an SPI director and the DPL historicaly
responsible for decisions that both sides are arguing about, I feel that it's
time for me to step in between the two parties.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
other case -- which is in fact
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030902 22:45]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The FSF would like to continue cooperating with Debian in such areas
where Debian's and the FSF's policies agree. However, we will not
cooperate with people that treat us harshly, no matter what their
policies might be.
And
Le mer 03/09/2003 à 04:56, Richard Stallman a écrit :
This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In this case, all the patent-related clauses are a no-op. When there
actually _are_ patents involved... that's tricky. I'm not sure about
that yet.
I am now. It's a clear violation of DFSG#7.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible for propietary
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:51:43PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Regarding non-free stuff in Debian and the GFDL, both sides are making
the _same_ mistake:
Debian, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true
to the Free Software ethos while the non-free file tree is so
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost
*all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
I think this is the link: Some people (software companies) prefer not to
license their code under the GPL, therefore they reject using GPL'd code.
Other people prefer to not wear clothes, therefore they reject free
t-shirts.
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-03 09:50]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
I think this is the link: Some people (software companies) prefer not to
license their code under the GPL, therefore they reject using GPL'd code.
Other people prefer to not wear clothes, therefore they
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It follows directly from contract law.
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
fact that a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030903 10:57]:
Sorry, but that didn't make any sense at all. There's no relationship
between a license forbidding use of code in the endeavor of writing
proprietary software, and a person choosing not to accept something
because of personal preference.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant
there.]
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under
Sun RPC license,
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030903 11:36]:
No. Proprietary software authors don't not use GPL code because they
prefer not to. They don't use it because the GPL prohibits them from
doing so.
Except when proprietary code from other parties is involved (which
is just a special form of
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
Such things are very hard to
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 15:32]:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people
Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes the UnrealIRCd license:
In order to continue with the download and installation of UnrealIRCd
you must accept the following license agreement:
[Full copy of GPL]
The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at
anytime as long as
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that this
strengthening of non-free is a very favorable side effect of the
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that
Mathieu, your habit of cutting context before replying makes long-term
conversation with you impossible.
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It must be possible to remove an installer without removing the
installed software. That's not what is asked here.
It is possible: remove the package
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we're talking about use of the GNU GPL as such, the preamble may
not be removed. It is, in effect, a sort of invariant section for
inclusion in all GPL-covered software.
By contrast, you can make a modified license (which is not the GPL)
using
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, under the terms of
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe the answer is no. The appropriate part of the GPL is
section 2b.
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Mathieu, your habit of cutting context before replying makes long-term
conversation with you impossible.
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It must be possible to remove an installer without removing the
installed software. That's not
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Bruce Perens wrote:
Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you
to resolve this by yourselves.
I don't see it this way. Both sides are imperfect, but on this issue I
feel it's pretty clear that the GFDL is a non-free license. Tempers on
the
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
DFSG#5 and #6 are rarely used. Most of the time, you really want to be
looking at #1, including for non-commercial use only licenses.
Well, I don't know which part of the MIT/X11 license you are aiming it,
but if you say it
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues,
Soon, you might need it to distribute documentation for central
software components. In fact, some DDs I asked think that
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
You are mistaken. You may wish to read GPLv2.
Please also consider the matter of privity of contract.
In order for (2) to be legally indeterminate, there needs to be
applicable
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I should have been more clear that I was refering to licenses in the
general sense.
Oh, so now you're attempting to change the subject! I see.
You had said:
My argument[1], for reference, is that a work dedicated to the
public domain is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The FSF, on the other hand, have explicitly stated that they have no
intention of even discussing the GFDL issue with us.
FSF will discuss the issue, I think I can see to that much. Some of you
had Richard backed against a wall, and of course people dig in and become
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 22:56 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
Branden is trying to make innocent things look bad; shame on him.
Given the interview itself and the note I added later, both my views
and the events involving GNU/LinEx are clear enough. So I won't
answer his questions
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:49 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
When referring to a license, it's useful to provide a URL to the text
of
the license in question.
I respectfully disagree. It's useful to provide the full text of the
license in question, not just a URL.
Rationale:
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 11:45 US/Eastern, Rick Moen wrote:
And if that person objects that, no, he really, really wants to destroy
his copyright and make the code be actually (or at least effectively
but
for certain so) public domain, then I would advise him that it's an
imperfect world,
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 20:26 US/Eastern, Don Armstrong wrote:
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
I sure hope not, because a contract needs consideration (i.e.,
something of value) from both sides to be valid.
Licenses can certainly be a part of a
It would be a bizarre thing to me if RMS were to say If Debian were to
stop distributing non-free, the FSF would agree that documentation needs
to be as free as programs and change the GFDL.
I am _not_ calling for horse-trading between the two organizations. That
would inevitably lead to a
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 09:40, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The FSF would like to continue cooperating with Debian in such areas
where Debian's and the FSF's policies agree. However, we will not
cooperate with people that treat us
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You claimed that this followed directly from contract law, to which
I replied:
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from
the fact that a license granting unlimited unrevokable
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I have seven questions for you based on this episode:
Branden is trying to make innocent things look bad; shame on him.
This is an assertion without foundation. If you feel there are implicit
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am now. It's a clear violation of DFSG#7.
Thanks for everyone's opinion. The consensus is that this license is
not compatible with the DFSG.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:06:12PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
We just can't read DFSG#6 that broadly.
So you want to say one should limit its reading to
something unreasonable small, because one could also
read it unreadonable broad?
You just said, yourself, that you can't read
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030903 20:50]:
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 20:26 US/Eastern, Don Armstrong wrote:
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
I sure hope not, because a contract needs consideration (i.e.,
something of value) from both sides
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:36:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
For these reasons, I believe we should ask for license texts, and other
relevant, small documents, to be posted inline instead of being linked.
I'll add one: it's just much easier to discuss a license when it's
there to be
Don Armstrong wrote:
The forms of the license are formed and founded in Contract Law.
Contract Law is what enables you to make such a legaly binding
agreement. Licenses obey the forms of either a contract or a lease or
they are not legally valid. [At least, I have yet to year a good
argument for
50 matches
Mail list logo
