Someone posted the following on slashdot, presumably a debian someone:
Nobody's saying that your proprietary hardware will cease to work in
Debian. The packages will still exist; they'll just be in the
non-free section, separated out so that people who don't want any
non-free
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
So hopefully, Debian can print out some nice warning that Reiser4 is
not plagiarizable, and if the user indicates that they still want to
use it anyway, they can go forward.
We have to ascertain as well that we can even legally distribute
it. Assuming
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
Martin, it's great of you to do a summary. My thoughts included below.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
| This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple
(-www should please cc me in reply - MFT is set.)
Frank Lichtenheld said on Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200,:
As some of you might have known/noticed, Andreas Barth and I worked
on a way to present the findings of debian-legal on the Debian
website.
snip
You can find these
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 05:32, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
Also, a clustering file system built to work on top of this file
system shall be considered a derivative work for the purposes of
interpreting the GPL license granted herein. Plugins are also to be
considered derivative works. Share
* Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
1. where should somebody go to if (s)he wants to check if the FOO
license is DFSG compliant? Obviously, licenses which were in Debian
for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be mentioned in these pages.
I'm just preparing a summary of
Hi,
Just a little question.
If you want a copyleft license for your work debian-legal recommends the
GPL v2.0.
What is the recommendation if you want a copyleft license, but no as
strong as the GPL, in particular if you consider that simply linking a
module does not produce a derivative
Stephen Frost writes:
Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to,
* Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-04-30 03:49]:
I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
I would say, we definitely need
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
So hopefully, Debian can print out some nice warning that Reiser4 is
not plagiarizable, and if the user indicates that they still want to
use it anyway, they can go forward.
We have to ascertain as well that we can even
I just want to add that I am very grateful to Domenico for the work he
has done in trying to aid integration.
It is a pity that Debian and Suse historically silently cut the
attributions (this was before Domenico got involved with us) rather than
engaging us in a dialogue about them first,
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone posted the following on slashdot, presumably a debian someone:
Nobody's saying that your proprietary hardware will cease to work in
Debian. The packages will still exist; they'll just be in the
non-free section, separated out so that
On 2004-04-30 13:02:19 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a pity that Debian and Suse historically silently cut the
attributions
I think you will find that Debian would leave the copyright
attribution notices, warranty disclaimer and statement of licence.
Doing otherwise is a
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040430 01:47]:
* Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
1. where should somebody go to if (s)he wants to check if the FOO
license is DFSG compliant? Obviously, licenses which were in Debian
for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
disagreement
I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
1. Export regs. Are our servers up to snuff for avoiding export to US
embargoed countries? (It looks to
Walter Landry wrote:
The largest problem is that with the
clarification, you seem to have
changed the license, making it slightly more
restrictive than the
plain old GPL. The combination of Reiser4 and the
kernel triggers GPL
Section 2. That means that Debian will not be able
to
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 04:48 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your
distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of.
No, that would be nothing to do with respect or gratitude; but a simple
licence problem. We require
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and
Is this the licencing in question?
###
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front end that hides my credits from the user or renaming mkreiser4
to mkyourcompanyfs or even just make_filesystem,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:36:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm reposting this as a draft (a) because it's been longer than I
planned before posting the new version, and (b) there are some changes
to this (e.g., including the fourth issue, and the way I ground the
first one) that I figured
On 2004-04-30 17:26:50 +0100 Michael Milverton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this as meaning the following. Nobody is allowed to take the
product
that we produce and rename it into something else, thereby making it
look as
though it really belongs to someone else.
You just ignored the
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force
attribution according
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Item #5 External Deployment places distribution-like burdens on
deployment. E.g., when the Work is made available over a network
source must be distributed. This is a use restriction. While the
DFSG does not explicitly prohibit this, the
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Just as, when you
require attribution in a particular format and with a particular text,
that's fine, but non-free.
Actually, I would be happy to use language not requiring a particular
format but requiring it to be equally prominent and extensive for all
Michael, you are much more eloquent than I am. Thanks for understanding.
Hans
Michael Milverton wrote:
Is this the licencing in question?
###
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term under your direct control typically does not refer to
physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
usually refers to under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
[legal] control, that is any computer that the licensee (which
may be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| It is entirely within your rights as copyright holder to push whatever
| social agenda you wish with your software license -- but debian-legal's
| position is that that will make the license non-free. If you wish to
| require that it not be used
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-30 17:26:50 +0100 Michael Milverton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this as meaning the following. Nobody is allowed to take the
product that we produce and rename it into something else, thereby
making it look as though it really belongs to someone else.
You
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your
distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of.
That perhaps is unfortunate, but we have expended extreme amounts of
effort in attempting to get both yourself and the
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Stewart Smith wrote:
It doesn't add, it clarifies. i.e. if you build a clustered file
system that does stuff specific to reiserfs (e.g. use the reiser4
syscall), then that will be considered a derived work, and must be
distributable under the GPL.
The clarification really
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, David Masover wrote:
I think there should be a similar option with licenses -- from
free to microsoft, including things in between such as djb or
reiser style licenses.
Right now, there's only free and non-free. If I am human and
sane, my _only_ choice is probably
David == David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
David Basically, by having free and non-free, you lump everything
David together into free as in absolutely, strictly, lilly-white,
David no-strings-attached freedom, while non-free covers everything
David from reiser (free, as above, with
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:34:11PM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 05:32, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
Also, a clustering file system built to work on top of this file
system shall be considered a derivative work for the purposes of
interpreting the GPL license granted
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term under your direct control typically does not refer to
physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
usually refers to under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My school is looking into installing Stanford's Coursework application for
managing online course sites:
http://getcoursework.stanford.edu/index.html
However, its license seems to be decidedly non-free, and I'm trying to
convince my school not to
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:12:28AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on
Mr. Reiser, I am a gread admirer of your work; I am a great admirer of
Reiserfs, both versions 3 and 4; and I am a great admirer of the
concepts in Reiser4; that stated, I disagree with you in what regards to
its licensing, so would you please clarify some points to me?
@ 30/04/2004 14:27 :
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:09:52PM -0700, Elizabeth Fong wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My school is looking into installing Stanford's Coursework application for
managing online course sites:
http://getcoursework.stanford.edu/index.html
However, its license seems
Elizabeth Fong wrote:
My school is looking into installing Stanford's Coursework application for
managing online course sites:
http://getcoursework.stanford.edu/index.html
High school, community college, university?
However, its license seems to be decidedly non-free, and I'm trying to
OPL requires the reproduced document to contain the incorporation of
license by reference in the form Copyright (c) ... This material may
be distributed Is it OK to substitute it with an
equivalent translation in an Non-English document?
Viktor Nagy
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:09:18PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I want to distinguish between software and other data because I prefer
to use English in a precise way, and because I think that is
consistent with the broader usage[1].
[1]- See, for example,
42 matches
Mail list logo
