uot; of the license. This is true of most
licenses, including the GPL (even v3), but I think the AGPL is particularly
weak (at least the "A" part is).
--
Wesley J. Landaker
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 07 February 2009 06:21:55 Colin Turner wrote:
> ... the code is so astonishingly trivial ...
Given this, why not just take 10 minutes and reimplement it?
--
Wesley J. Landaker
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This i
d Open Source Software Community issue and members of that community
(including individuals involved with Debian) ought to work with upstream to
help them acknowledge and rectifty the situation.
--
Wesley J. Landaker
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
sign
ensed wiki's to relicense. It otherwise isn't really any different.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
oc/debian-keyring/copyright even says "The keys in the
keyrings don't fall under any copyright." Ops!
Maybe there are other reasons, but let's not pretend we're keeping
debian-backports-keyring out because it's not "free software".
(Personally, I think
t the normal output of the program is not a derived
work of the program itself. This obviously doesn't apply to *all* AGPLv3
programs.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
nd up being undistributable because they are derivitive works of
several licenses with incompatible requirements.
Footnotes:
[1] Or BSD, or GPLv3, or Apache, or ...
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
quot;free" something from the GPL (or any license,
really), unless you:
1) Get the author to re/dual-license their code, or
2) Rewrite all of the "offending" code.
Footnotes:
[1] Glossing over how this example trivial change is not copyrightable
anyway. I'm assuming as y
ations to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code",
yes, this not all derivative works, it's only a specific kind of derivative
work. The kind that is "source code", i.e. "the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it".
For all non-source ki
source code".
>
> To my eyes this seems to tick the DFSG boxes, but I would appreciate any
> opinions on this matter.
Regardless of the other options, since (b) says you can distribute under
GPLv2, I don't see a problem.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
O
sure anyone really knows what the source is.
But if you are really concerned, record yourself saying "uh-oh" and speed it
way up[2] with audacity. Problem solved. =)
[1] Apparently; I never checked the md5sums or anything.
[2] Maybe this is what ICQ did. Who knows?
--
Wesley J. Landake
't work, you could always just replace the icons in question
with free ones, e.g. from a different free program, from OpenClipart, from
KDE or GNOME, etc.
There is no dearth of good freely licensed icons out there.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
ved work, but it's not a derived work
just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to
include when executed.
Anyway, you could possibly argue either way if the .elc file is make a
derived work by "linking" to emacs. But the .el file by itself is
unquestiona
gt;right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have,
> >which could be considered to be a fee.
>
> And what about societies without money? "fee" does NOT equal "money".
> Your "common knowledge" is not my understanding ...
Okay, now I
On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:05:05 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the
> > Preample:
> >
> > "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license
r
software and other kinds of works."
And, the license is is *very* generic in it's definitions of "Program"
and "Source", but still, they used the works "Program" and "Source". And
they apparently believe that documentation is not part of "
mend just using the GPL, or if you must use the GFDL
for compatibility with something, dual-licensing both GFDL and GPL.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
) of the Work with a moving image shall not be
> considered a transformation of the Work into something substantially
> different.
I'm no DFSG-nazi, but these seem pretty cut-and-dried non-free.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpvgk8otcuyd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uld
indeed make a derivative work, but just having the same general story or
plot would not. The same is true of characters, with some caveats.
Obviously copied dialog, graphics, or sound from a non-free source would be
a problem.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
O
one restriction they add is DFSG-free.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into a big debate about it. The OP is just
going to have to decide, and if the upload the package, the ftp-masters
will have to decide what they believe.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135
e, but as long as the restriction itself is DFSG free, the work as
a whole should be fine.
The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't see why
it wouldn't be DFSG free[1].
[1] Cue someone who will point out a billion reasons why they think similar
clauses in G
distributions and use services like SourceForge, I
> don't want to inadvertently introduce non-free stuff into the game.
It's DFSG free, but it doesn't seem GPL compatible because of #3. I could
see the documentation being under a different license as the code being
sli
t the way
the license necessarily must be interpreted. The license doesn't say
anything about the form that the *author* prefers.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpwGMgwUj1MC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
it would be a good idea to replace the artwork anyway
(ideally, but not necessarily upstream), otherwise regardless of legality
and how good the game is, it screams "I am a cheap ripoff." =)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F
are really worried about it, you might just want to rewrite it from
scratch.
(And no, unfortunately GHDL isn't going to be in etch no matter what,
because of an unresolved bug in GNU ld on ia64 and now the freeze.)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 47
e good to add this more specifically into the
debian/copyright file:
Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author
Upstream license text
+
+Debian packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer
+ Packaging license text
What do other folks think?
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
erline.
> If not, would it be possible to be uploaded to the non-free repository
> instead?
The spirit of the license (especially given the heavy-handed preample)
doesn't feel like "main" material to me.
I think it's clearly distributable in non-free, however.
--
gt; kismet, I think). However, I'm not sure if it can be used freely, I
> couldn't find a license statement or something.
It's simply a list of facts, so it's not copyrightable.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpPGRhfX5oX0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ident test has nothing do to with the DFSG, except by
quite a big a stretch of the imagination.
Not to say it's not a valuable thought experiment in some cases, but it sure
isn't the great canonical test that some people here seem to think it is.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PR
matic when
linked with software that has incompatible licenses.
Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free
license; but it's not GPL compatible.
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROT
ptly, I must say) removed the clause from the
> website. Hope that solves all the problems with the IFRIT licenses.
It's good that they did, but even if they didn't, the license in each
file of the *actual software* has no such non-free clause. =)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAI
that I'm lazy, and in several cases of sme people using
GPL'd work improperly I have been ready to join a lawsuit that somebody
else initiates. So far people have tended to back down."
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp8PFyDUyWZG.pgp
Description: signature
32 matches
Mail list logo
