On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:11:02PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is stupid if they released their software under a free license
without realizing what freedom means.
Well, the realization of what freedom means does in fact appear to be
escaping some advocates of the GNU FDL...
--
G.
[snip]
It looks like Republican notions of tort reform[1] might have a lot of
support in Europe.
[1] Before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist
*defined* judicial conservatism as being a technique for reading the
law such that criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs are
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that
technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian
Project impossible,
Pure FUD.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:58:15PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted languages demand GPL scripts? I believe Anthony
and I are at an
Hello GNU folks,
Can you gentlemen disambiguate or resolve the tension between the
following statements in the GPL FAQ[1]?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
the GPL preamble, and provided you
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which
is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with
this; it is certainly an
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Actually, I wonder whether the current application of the GFDL for
GNU manuals is internally consistent at all.
For example, the GNU diffutils manual is licenced with the Front-Cover
Text A GNU Manual. Say now that I'm a FooBSD
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:17:45PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a follow up to the previous discussion about the VisualBoyAdvance
licence thing.
I have been in contact with the author of the programme and he says
that he intends to release the whole source under the GPL. However he
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:00:13PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
of Stallman's essays.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:57:08PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto
Okay. Would you draw us up some Debian Free Manifesto Guidelines and
tell us how we should relate them to the Debian Social Contract?
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:39:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Documentation *is* software, and therefore its licenses must follow the
DFSG; I thought we just decided that.
Please don't exaggerate. There is a difference between the statements:
1) Documentation *is* software; and
2) The
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
Le mer 07/05/2003 à 08:12, Branden Robinson a écrit :
I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any
invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source
code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
was tangentially related to this
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:20:53PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
How does that follow from the definition of free applicable in this
context? http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Just to pick a nit, that's not a definition. It's a series of tests.
The Free Software Foundation
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
what's weird is people applying the free-software concept to things
other than software.
I don't see what's weird about it.
# Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If it
is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it.
...in main, anyway...
--
G. Branden Robinson| The software said it
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:13:51PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
there you go. you are attempting to supersede the DFSG with DFWWWDG
without any discussion among developers or a vote.
No, you are trying to supersede clause 1 of the Social Contract
unilaterally, without a vote.
We on debian-legal
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head.
Unfortunately this is pretty common. A lot of people (just to pick an
example out of thin air, Isaac To on the debian-devel list) seem to
believe that something is Free as long as it
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:05:23PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end.
No, it is because of zeal that revolutions happen at all.
Most people are sheep, couch potatoes, collaborators, or wage-slaves.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:36:39AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
It seems that he is. :(
--
G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 06:23:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Unfortunatly, it is because of the tolling rants of developers like you
that we cannot seem to get a consensus anymore. And we seemed *so* close
to a consensus on the FDL, and actually doing something too..
Don't despair. I personally
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:37:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If we decide hey, let's not distribute them in main at all, I take it
you mean.
You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream
source includes some
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:59:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You might like to consider some of the other documents accompanying
WHY-FREE, and their relevance to emacs or Debian.
CENSORSHIP - 1996-03-01 criticism of the Communications Decency Act
of 1996-02, which was
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If it
is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it.
...in main, anyway...
Hair well split.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 03:51:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
the invariant or cover options are
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Besides, I don't think [...] the ftp masters want to become the
Truth Police.
Who says they aren't already?
;-)
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
| The publisher
| and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the
| book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original
| publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and
| cited as possessive with
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:21:18PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Package: automake1.6
Version: 1.6.3-5
Severity: serious
I noticed this from a discussion in #148412 about gimp's licensing)
[snip standard MIT/X11 copyright notice and license]
Not only does automake not reproduce these
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:25:34AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end.
So it is wrong for me to defend what I believe is right?
I think Mr. Romosan is expecting you to
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The copyright holder of a work is free to license the work under the
terms of his choosing. Although the PHP-Nuke author has stated the work
is under the GPL, he imposes the additional restriction (one which we
believe is NOT
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 05:29:25PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If
it
is not free as we define it,
Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hmm, I think you've got a point, the just add an OpenSSL exception to
the license procedure doesn't work if other GPL'ed stuff
(mysql-server) is included.
I wrote today with Lenz
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 07:21, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:59:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You might like to consider some of the other documents accompanying
WHY-FREE, and their relevance to emacs or Debian.
It looks like RMS used to use the official GNU Emacs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And now, a short clarification statement:
I was recently mentioned in a discussion on debian-legal, but the
cited emails are unpublished. I assure you that I did not claim to
speak for the Debian project or call the debian-legal list a minority
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:11:02PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is stupid if they released their software under a free license
without realizing what freedom means.
Well, the realization of what freedom means does in fact appear to be
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1) Documentation *is* software; and
2) The Debian Project treats documentation as software for the
purposes
of interpreting our Social Contract and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
I do not believe the former. I do believe the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the
I've already contacted upstream privately about this and he is all
over it. They will either rewrite it from scratch, or perhaps update
the licensing terms since it seems at one point install.sh was
distributed later on in X11R6 without these licensing terms. I'll keep
you posted.
* Branden
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term free software.
(Now there's a surprise.)
Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.
So let's try.
1. Software is executables,
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to
satisfy.
I thought that the reason was that the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that was impossible to
satisfy.
I thought that
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
you should be able to do a
text representation of a FFT or something, I would've thought. Long,
and ugly, but editable as text,
That's no better than a hex dump of the PCM data. It's not any more
editable in a text editor (possibly,
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in a GPLed library hasn't been cloned yet?
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 03:53 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is your argument that because of the nature of GNU automake, it might
be
causing our users to inadvertently infringe MIT's copyright?
Yes, that's the argument. See the first paragraph under the quoted
material, which reads in
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:39:51AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
And now, a short clarification statement:
I was recently mentioned in a discussion on debian-legal, but the
cited emails are unpublished. I assure you that I did not claim to
speak for the Debian project or call the debian-legal list a
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This point should probably be clarified. The reason PHP-Nuke was
regarded as non-DFSG-free was because the author's additional
restriction created, in our opinion, a license that
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:29:52AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hmm, I think you've got a point, the just add an OpenSSL exception to
the license procedure doesn't work if other GPL'ed stuff
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any
invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source
code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
was tangentially related
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:28:12PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GPL,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an interface to various implementations
of similar features, and the user selects which implementation to
use
3) Perl modules PM uses GPLLib to
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:52:46AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Didn't the QPL used to have this exact feature?
It was considered free at the time, wasn't it?
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used.
Okay, so this is wrong. You're not allowed to include non-free stuff in
anything uploaded to main, .deb, .diff.gz or
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used.
I'd actually expect apt-get source foo to return sources that are DFSG
free, when foo is in main or contrib.
Granted, you should be checking the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in a GPLed library hasn't been cloned yet?
Given:
1) Library
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:15:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yes, that's the argument. See the first paragraph under the quoted
material, which reads in part:
...but it also automatically installs a copy of install-sh
into automake-using packages when --add-missing is used.
60 matches
Mail list logo
