Shriramana Sharma wrote:
When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be
directly or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
information as to how to obtain the complete source code for such work
^^at no more charge than the cost of transfer^^:
* on
John Halton wrote:
But if they simply fork the project under a new name, and keep the
insults to, say, a mailing list ;-), then it's hard to see how that
would constitute an infringement of moral rights. And if that *does*
constitute an infringement of moral rights then that would seem to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:09:09 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
A tricky case could be a use of the work that the author absolutely
doesn't want to be associated with. What if some right-wing
extremists use your forum software to discuss their racist plans?
Your name could then be associated with
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:51:03 + John Halton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
This
* Andreas Metzler:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler:
I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not
inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+
both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this?
You should ask the GNUTLS folks.
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yeah, and then the FSF goes on to publish (or seek to publish):
* the GNU FDL [1]
* the GNU AfferoGPL
* the GNU SFDL [2]
* the GNU Wiki License, mentioned in a GFDLv2-draft1 proposed clause[3]
As if their existing licenses are Harry Potter stories widely read and
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
address this problem without doing more harm than good.
Any solution I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or non-free
in subtler ways.
The only
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Why bother with the technical implementation at all? Just say that
you must prominently provide the information where to get the source
from you to network users of the work.
I take it means: you must prominently provide the information to
network users of the work as
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem.
I'm inclined to agree (though open to persuasion otherwise).
There seem to be two main positions one could take on this:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Otherwise, if moral rights are *that* restrictive, it may be
*impossible* (for software developed in jurisdictions with so strong
moral rights) to really comply with DFSG#5 and DFSG#6, since,
despite whatever the license may
John Halton wrote:
1.One could argue that objections to the ASP loophole come down
to a reluctance to accept the implications of the no
restrictions on use aspects of free software: How dare people
make money out of the software I've written?
I don't know about the AGPL.
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the source
code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:53AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked with
carets.
When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly
or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the
source code isn't a
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
1)
Please explain how this is legal.
Qt is copyrighted by Trolltech. A license provides me rights that
normally only the copyright
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:16PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Anyway, I feel you miss the point where someone who licenses their
software under a license with an ASP-fix clause does not want to
prevent their consumers (the service providers) from making money,
any more than Linus Torvalds
On Sunday 11 November 2007 08:55:51 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The
very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a
derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when
distributed, whether in source
While discussions of legal definitions and license implications are
interesting, it seems like they should be related to software that is,
or could be, in Debian to be on-topic for this list. Could those who
wish to discuss abstractions that are moot with respect to Debian find
another place to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paragraph 2.2.2 probably resolves any ambiguity here:
No, it's about a different situation.
Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are [...]
free packages which require contrib, non-free packages or *packages
which are not in our archive at all* for
On Nov 10, Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the maintainer does not believe this to be an issue [1] because the
firmware fetching stuff is a small part of the total package. i
The maintainer is correct.
suggested that he could split out the firmware fetching stuff into a
contrib
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
I did not think it was probable that a company providing such a service
would have no place on the network connected to their activities, in
other words, a website. So the current wording does not actually mandate
that they *have* or *provide* such a location
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:07:51 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
But anyway, I'm under the impression that it could be impossible to
address this problem without doing more harm than good.
Any solution I've seen so far is either utterly non-free, or
non-free in
Le dimanche 11 novembre 2007 à 21:25 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit :
The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The
very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a
derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when
distributed,
* John Halton:
The box popped up on my last upgrade (to 1.5.2). Perhaps I should file
it as a bug.
Yes, please do. The prompt doesn't even note that Virtualbox is
licensed under the GPL, so we can actually remove it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
* John Halton:
My question that started this thread was whether a simple ASP-fix
clause would make a work non-DFSG-free. The licensing terms *I* am
presenting for discussion is a Sleepycat+ASP-fix license which I
have already outlined on this list.
I suspect any ASP fix is going to run into
Marco d'Itri wrote:
No, it's a very different case since here we have a large free
self-contained free software program which works without any non-free
dependencies, whose package also contains an additional little script
which downloads and copies to an external device some file.
There is
i received the following message from the upstream author of foo2zjs.
it is his belief that much of the package should be non-free. see below.
Rick Richardson wrote:
It is not the firmware only. It is also ICC/ICM Color Correction files.
And PATENTS. Patents by IBM and ATT in the USA and
27 matches
Mail list logo
