* Humberto Massa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 00:25]:
@ 22/04/2004 18:26 : wrote Andreas Barth :
Of course we can discriminate - like the GPL does.
no, no, the GPL discriminates what you do with the specific piece of
software you are redistributing or its derived works, not if you are or
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 01:25]:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we should think about language to add to the DFSG for this
kind of case?
I wish you luck. But we can never be sure that any formulation of the
DFSG will describe exactly the next kind
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program,
because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict
use in the first place. If the license demands that one accepts a
restriction on use as a condition on getting the
On 2004-04-22 22:39:21 +0100 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when these parties distribute, they only grant the GPL rights to those
they distribute, because that's what the GPL says happens. Such
parties cannot redistribute because they cannot meet both the terms of
the GPL and the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program,
because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict
use in the first place. If the license demands
Hi,
Lex Spoon wrote:
The export clause just means Squeak must go into non-free.
No. Rather non-US. With non-free, we have the same export problem. And
if there's another problem that forces us to put Squeak to non-free, the
result would have to be non-US/non-free.
In sum, I think Squeak
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
My considered opinion is that DFSG #5 and #6 are horrible blunders
@ 23/04/2004 08:34 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
(about DFSG#5,6)
They're supposed to prohibit this sort of license clause (all real
examples, albeit not with precise wording):
- This software may not be used in nuclear power plants.
- This software may not be used by the US government.
- This
On Apr 22, 2004, at 17:39, Sam Hartman wrote:
Copyright 2003 by the Evil Empire, Inc.
This software can be redistributed under the terms of the GNU GPL,
version 2., with
the exception that it may be linked against the OpenSSL toolkit even
though doing so would be a violation of the GPL.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
What do you think of the wording I suggested replacing #6 with?
Reproduced:
6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in
a
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 04:08:23PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'm not trying to read the DFSG as narrowly as possible. I was merely
observing that I couldn't find a clause of the DFSG that really stated that
what the OP was proposing was non-free. You conveniently cut the parts of
my
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 06:51:40AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:55:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Jake Appelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LICENCE FOR HYDRA (all version)
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
You are not the only one. Jaldhar H. Vyas tried before.
: You must ensure that all recipients of
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:30:42PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor), but
I'm uncomfortable using
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
[...]
This issue was discussed earlier. And the consensus seems to be (at
least my opinion was)
Branden Robinson said on Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:44PM -0500,:
Anybody have a URL to the list archives?
It starts here:-
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00286.html
The conclusion seems to be here:-
Anthony == Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony On Apr 22, 2004, at 17:39, Sam Hartman wrote:
Copyright 2003 by the Evil Empire, Inc. This software can be
redistributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2., with
the exception that it may be linked
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ I will not reply to your grandstanding about our needs, other
MJ than to note that the default for unlicensed software is
MJ roughly all rights reserved, so we must get clear
MJ permissions.
We are not a court. We do not pursue
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
However, if you modified the work, you were not obligated to pass
along the OpenSSL exception.
You are not obligated to pass along the exception for your own
copyrighted material, but the exception continues for the original
work.
It's not actually
Jeremy == Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG
Jeremy section for the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes
Jeremy to prohibiting use restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination
Jeremy Against Fields of
posted mailed
I'm mailing Evan and redirecting to -legal, where this sort of detail
belongs.
Evan Prodromou wrote:
AT == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Me We wouldn't just take stuff out based on the
Me _assumption_ that there's a better source format, without
Me
Don == Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don You have the right to make the exception for your own work,
Don and since the original work maintains the exception, you can
Don combine the two to make an exception over the whole
Don work. [Assuming that the original exception
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 09:21:15AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a
business, from being used for genetic research,
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a problem. Is my
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against
Jake Appelbaum wrote:
Hello,
I am interested in packaging hydra from the THC group. I think that it
would be an excellent addition to the Debian project.
My question arises from an added license that is in the hydra-3.1.tar.gz
package that I downloaded from
Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I will admit that I thought this was true for all works not just for
modified works. So in my original example, you could actually
continue distributing the original program that contained GPL plus an
OpenSSL exception. However, if you modified the work, you were not
Sam Hartman wrote:
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ I will not reply to your grandstanding about our needs, other
MJ than to note that the default for unlicensed software is
MJ roughly all rights reserved, so we must get clear
MJ permissions.
We are not a court.
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Minimizing the probability that Debian, that or contributers to
Debian will be involved in legal action arising from Debian's
distribution or modification of software.
I don't think this is among the goals of debian-legal. Can you
remember discussions
Brian May wrote:
snip
Brian There are other issues with the GPL that might effect
Brian soundfont files, not sure. For instance, would the
Brian soundfont file be considered source code when making a
Brian *.wav file?
Probably; it would be the preferred form for modification,
Brian May wrote:
Ryan == Ryan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ryan I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug.
You weren't listed in your mail-followup-to header, but I CCed you
anyway. Hmmm, I guess I should have CCed you at the start, sorry about
that (the BTS
posted mailed
Jiba wrote:
Hi all,
About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur
in a free license:
You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character,
and his background.
No. The requirement is quite definitely non-free. It also doesn't
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:27:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think starting or ending an analysis with well, I can't find anything
that directly contravenes the DFSG is a risky approach to take.
DFSG-conformance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a work
to be Free
On 2004-04-23 19:24:49 +0100 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not a court. We do not pursue licensing rigorously enough that
we are sure that everything we do will stand up in court.
No, we are not a court, so should avoid relying on things which look
like they are a court case
posted mailed
Joshua Tacoma wrote:
(not only am INAL, I also have no experience developing debian packages,
and this may grow into my first one)
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/?lang=e
It's available under two licenses: one (free) for Open
Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
today I read that Alan Kay will receive this years's Turing Award[1] and
checked out his Open Source project Squeak[2]. I also realized that
there is an open RFP for it[3]. The package is supposed to be free, but
when I checked the license[4] and the package files,
posted mailed
Lex Spoon wrote:
Agreed on all counts, Brian.
I actually think Squeak should go into non-free on Debian, once the
fonts are removed from the image. I've been meaning to develop a
message to debian-legal about this for quite a while, and now Roland's
post and Alan Kay's
Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
Lex Spoon wrote:
The export clause just means Squeak must go into non-free.
No. Rather non-US. With non-free, we have the same export problem. And
if there's another problem that forces us to put Squeak to non-free, the
result would have to be non-US/non-free.
Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
In sum, I think Squeak should go into non-free once the restricted
fonts are removed from the image. We must choose what level of
paranoia we will have about licenses, and I believe we have been too
paranoid about Squeak's
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions. So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
Hi,
I was thinking of filing an ITP on Snort Alert Monitor[1] (SAM), but I'm not
100% sure about its license. Although the license is based on the GPL,
there are some modifications to it. Personally I think it still looks
compatible with the DFSG, but I may have missed something.
Do you guys
41 matches
Mail list logo
