On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:52:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
Well, it certainly seems plausible that at least some programs can do
this. Consider a
Someone recently commented on the DFSG-freeness of PHPNuke.
My recollection is that, because of the below notice, we decided that
PHPNuke was not DFSG-free as-is. The current discussions are merely
hypotheticals about what exactly the GPL requires in this situation.
I remind everyone that even
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:33:51AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:52:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
Well, it certainly seems
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:33:51AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:52:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
Well, it certainly seems
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:22:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I remind everyone that even if the GPL applies, the below notice is more
restrictive as it prevents editing to reflect current status. Additionally,
the required notice does not include the warranty information, which may be
a GPL
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:28:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are an object form. The page transmitted by PHP-nuke is not the
preferred form for modification (which has the PHP code embedded
within it), and so not source. It is produced by
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:48:48PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
To be honest, my primary concern here is building consensus about where
we draw the line wrt the DFSG-freeness of copyright banners, including
the implications of the grandfathered GPL 2(c).
My proposal is simple: all restrictions
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:08, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from
the user, nor does it output direcly to the user.
Therefore it is not interactive.
Bingo.
PHPNuks
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 19:43, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Just to be clear: I'm not sure exactly how or where PHPNuke outputs the
given text. If it's part of output templates, then it doesn't seem to
be a problem. My problem is if PHPNuke is claiming that I have to maintain
the GPL blurb even if I
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel
is wrong with it, and what I would do to change it, but I hope to be
able to do so in a few
Tim Spriggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
virii exempt :)
virii is not a word.
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be permitted. One modification that
must be
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
In general, contract law, nor license interpretation, which basically
proceeds along the same lines, does not accept tried really hard as
satisfying the terms of the contract.
If a contract is ambiguous, then a
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:45:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I find it hard to believe that anything produced by mechanical
transformation from a source is object form. Object form is machine code.
I can not magically transform a text file into object form by running
tr a-z A-Z on
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. Since it complies with all three of
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:36:18PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
(2)(c) concerns the act of modification. Altering the program to remove
copyright notices is
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
way, to print or display an announcement ... Apache is started in the
most ordinary way via
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel
is wrong with it, and what
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:45:19AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
Well, it certainly seems plausible that at least some programs can do
this. Consider a quine attached to a network socket.
OK, I'll bite -- what's a quine?
$ dict quine
3 definitions found
Hrmmph, I tried that on my
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:45:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I find it hard to believe that anything produced by mechanical
transformation from a source is object form. Object form is machine
code.
I can not magically transform a text file
Hello,
I am looking into the license of the Xbae widget set, see
http://xbae.sourceforge.net
One of my applications (twlog) uses this widget in a new version and
before asking a RFP or packaging it myself, I want to make sure the
license is okay. Here it is:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
No, it doesn't. The RPSL allows modifications. It allows derived
works. It allows them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute,
and to request the publishers to make the license clearer.
Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group
rather than just one person talking.
--
-russ nelson
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this material for any
purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
I'm concerned that this restricts us (or our cd vendors) from being
able to distribute the material for a fee [ie, on cd images and the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel
is wrong with it, and what
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
click-wrap?
DFSG says that modifications must be
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I think that's the claim -- that certain modifications of PHPNuke are
forbidden.
Okay, just reassuring that we're on the same page.
Interestingly, I don't think (2)(c) would forbid a modified PHPNuke to
print the copyright notice
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute,
and to request the publishers to make the license clearer.
Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group
rather than just one
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, a license is a contract. When you accept the GPL, you are
entering into a contract. There's an offer (distribute the software
and comply with the GPL), an acceptance (the act of distribution), and
consideration (the benefit of having one's
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
So there is an *extra* requirement for the distribution of a modified
version: you must make the modifications publicly available. There is
no such requirement on the original version.
The DFSG #3 doesn't require
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but a click-wrap implementation is not a mere license notice, but
a fair bit more, isn't it?
The current state of the art, in terms of ensuring license compliance,
says that you have to ensure that both parties realize that they're
entering into
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:30:36PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this material for any
purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
I'm concerned that this restricts us (or our cd vendors) from being
able to distribute the material for a fee [ie,
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible to
work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal judge
licenses, and have OSI
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More than anything else, I'm wanting to see if it's at all possible
to work with you. What I'd really like to do is let debian-legal
judge licenses, and have OSI rubber-stamp your decision. In order
to do that, though, you'd need to modify the OSD so
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Right. That's for licenses which are contractual. Free software
licenses are unilateral grants of permission, for which it is
unimportant to certify acceptance.
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for #3.
No. A license may treat different
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:49:52PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas, a license is a contract.
No, it is not (necessarily). People can contract with respect to all
sorts of things, but the scope of copyright is explicitly limited under
Title 17 of the United States Code, and likely in other
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel
is wrong with it, and what
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
don't think the OSD should get any votes in the process. Sorry, but
you all have not
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:31:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I feel very much the same as you. Yet as the author of various GPL'd
programs, I don't want people removing my name.
Remember, removing (2)(c) from the GNU GPL doesn't grant people
permission to remove your copyright notices. It
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Right. That's for licenses which are contractual. Free software
licenses are unilateral grants of permission, for which it is
unimportant to certify acceptance.
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
One of my applications (twlog) uses this widget in a new version and
before asking a RFP or packaging it myself, I want to make sure the
license is okay. Here it is:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the
rationale for
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:06:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Nobody, including the FSF, defines object form as not the preferred form
for modification. Just because the source code IS that format does not
bean that everything that is not source
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 13:50, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The modified software can be modified by the recipient only if he
tellss the public at large. This is the same condition.
So you are now saying that the license imposes a restriction on
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Determination of whether df is interactive is tangental to this,
though I'm not uninterested in reaffirming the notion that it is not.
Interaction is not the only guard in 2(c). The interaction that the
program receives from the user must consist of
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Does this mean that you can do these things without paying a fee to
upstream, or that you can only do these things if you don't charge a
fee for doing so?
As far as I can tell, the license isn't clear as to what is being done
'without fee'. All of the
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:33, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this material for any
purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
I'm concerned that this restricts us (or our cd vendors) from being
able to distribute the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:33:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Just FYI, I share your feelings. I think 2c is the worst wart on the
GNU GPL.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the FSF is interested in having more
warts like this in GNU GPL v3, not fewer.
I've seen you mention
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as object form
as any form other than the preferred form for modification?
For the detailed description, see
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Let me point you to the plain language of 17 USC? I am quoting for
you the relevant section of 106:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Note that it does not say:
(2) to dsitribute derivative works based upon the
[changed subject, as this is no longer related to PHPNuke]
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:12:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Determining the interactiveness of cat in a pipeline would be
relevant only if we agreed to the above.)
Similarly, cat is able to interact with the user (if we stretch that
concept (in)appropriately), it does not interpret
I've always wanted a standard-ish environment variable, eg. QUIET_GPL,
to turn off GPL notices globally. I havn't bothered since it's less work
for me to just set up aliases and rc files as needed to disable it in
individual programs than to patch programs and try to convince upstreams
to take
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:54, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Interestingly, I don't think (2)(c) would forbid a modified PHPNuke to
print the copyright notice to a printer (or console) in the server room,
instead of on the web page the user sees. The more I look at the
clause, the more convinced I
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:04:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just a random thought: There used to be an informal rule saying,
never write a false statement on the blackboard. Some student is
bound to mindlessly copy it down and take it
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
don't think the OSD should get any votes in the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:53:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
This, I simply don't think I can agree with. Perhaps a clearer example
would be irc.worldforge.org. It lives on a computer owned and operated
by Bob. But Bob basically never logs on to IRC. I asked, and the two
people currently
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal
wording.
You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the
substance of #3. You can't,
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under the same conditions as non-modified versions.
3. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's the modification that is covered, and you're not allowed to
modify in such a way as to remove a copyright notice that is normally
displayed on startup.
You are allowed to modify the code to remove the copyright notice,
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:38:52AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If
you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this
software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian,
It's the modification that is covered, and you're not allowed to
modify in such a way as to remove a copyright notice that is normally
displayed on startup.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
You are allowed to modify the code to remove the copyright
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
disclaims warranty.
That's not true.
What's not true? That there is a free
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
reply at this point. ]
The response you are quoting was made on the same day I received
69 matches
Mail list logo
