* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040715 21:40]:
Really? Wow. That's insane.
As insane as it would to allow anyone to modify my hand-typed,
elaborated pieces of software without even paying me. That's not
freedom, that is stupidity.
/sarcasm
Mit freuntlichen Grüßen,
Bernhard R. Link
O Venres, 16 de Xullo de 2004 ás 01:11:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri escribía:
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why are they free? Because DFSG #4 says so is answering an entirely
different question.
My opinion is that they are not, and DFSG#4 is a bug. I know that I'm
not the only person who would
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Really? Wow. That's insane.
Could you please explain that's insane? It seems simple and noncontroversial
that a free license can be non-free if certain key permissions are removed.
(Without
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: The license may not
require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
What is this royalty or other fee? I claim it is the normal
definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale
transaction. A normal
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040716 02:24]:
And yes, arguments can be made that some of the GPL requirements
similarly deter contribution under certain circumstances. The difference
seems to be quantitative, not qualitative; the GPL sought to achieve a
balance point between the rights
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely it's not the license that restricts the activities of the
dissident, it's the local authorities? If my government decrees that
anyone producing works that oblige
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It's a pain in the ass, but why should having responsibilities
attached to your use of freedoms be non-free?
It depends on what the responsibility is.
I could make you responsible for paying me $500 every time you used
one of the freedoms[1] granted
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there were, would we consider the GPL non-free?
It certainly wouldn't be free in that jurisdiction. Whether Debian
decides to care about such jurisdicitions is, to some degree, a policy
decision. The thing about
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It's a pain in the ass, but why should having responsibilities
attached to your use of freedoms be non-free?
It depends on what the responsibility is.
Right. So the fact that I have to do something awkward is
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:03:22AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What is this royalty or other fee? I claim it is the normal
definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale
transaction. A normal definition in English law is from Dunlop v
Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847: An act or
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a
GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on
the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the
right to pass on further
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
posted mailed
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results
in a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your
modifications.
So would a license that required you to redistribute any custom
modifications to any other unrelated
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:13:38PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The developer hasn't promised to obey the license. I distribute
software written by others all the time. I'm not sued by them because
they licensed me to do this under the GPL, but I wouldn't even have to
know about the
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that this is bad, but does DFSG 3 forbid this? Perhaps it
does, but only if you assume some kind of implicit substitution where
the modifier replaces the author in the same terms. I don't think
that's a particularly natural way to read
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:13:38PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The developer hasn't promised to obey the license. I distribute
software written by others all the time. I'm not sued by them because
they licensed me to do this under the GPL, but
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their
software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe,
someday, I'll fail to note my changes at the top of every file!
Bwahaha.
And if I ever
Lex Spoon wrote:
Why do you think *real* lawyers seem to be okay with such clauses?
Sometimes parties in a uniformly constructed contract agree to a particular
venue, perhaps because both are qualified to practice law there. In a free
software license or commercial EULA however, the licensee
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:24:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why are they free? Because DFSG #4 says so is answering an entirely
different question.
My opinion is that they are
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Trademark license:
You may use this logo or a modified version of it to refer to Debian.
You may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to
anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand,
is
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd also love to see it removed, and agree that it's a bug -- but I
think the *first* step is getting critical patch-clause software out
of main, only to be followed by the GR to remove the wart on DFSG#4
which, by that time, nothing important will be using anyway.
Sven Luther wrote:
And also a proposal on how to make the licence non-free, instead of
the please switch to the GPL which is sure to be received with
laugthers or even some anger when i go upstream with it.
I am changing this in the second draft. The primary recommendation will
still be to
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
problems you mention. And also a proposal on how to make the licence
non-free, instead of the please switch to the GPL which is sure to be
received with laugthers or even some anger when i go upstream with it.
The original users of
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:27:41PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
And also a proposal on how to make the licence non-free, instead of
the please switch to the GPL which is sure to be received with
laugthers or even some anger when i go upstream with it.
I am changing this
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 07:40:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
problems you mention. And also a proposal on how to make the licence
non-free, instead of the please switch to the GPL which is sure to be
received with laugthers or
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:40:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
reasonable. We've asked many software authors to do similar things in the
past, with very frequent success, and less laughter and anger than you
seem to think.
Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author
many more rights with the software than you had -- he can take
it proprietary, and you can't. Also, no matter who you want
to give those modifications to, you
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to try and formulate the asymmetry criterion you
might want to consider the case of a licence L that forced
everyone who distributes a modified version to make their
modifications available under a BSD
31 matches
Mail list logo
