Re: Processed: Forwarding to the technical committee
* Joerg Jaspert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060405 00:57]: Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license for that, but well... Definitly you cannot revoke GPL for a old version to someone who actually received the old version. However, Joerg S could claim that he never really licensed it to the GPL (and then we have to prove he had), and also, if he distributes the files as GPL but not according to GPL (e.g. the make files are GPL-incompatible), distributing binaries by us is illegal. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Processed: Forwarding to the technical committee
On 10615 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: Hrm. I *can* try that. I dont know if it helps, as its similar hard to discuss this via a phone. It would be best if it were someone he wasn't already upset with ! I hope he isnt that upset with me. And also - shouldnt it be one of those who he sees as the Debian maintainers for his software that tries to fix differences he has with Debian / Debian has with him? Hrm. How about: I prepare a mail to write to him (in German, makes it easier) to discuss it again, starting completly new, explaining our problem. And also ask if he is ok with a phone call, maybe also from others. But - tomorrow, not tonight, so with a bit of sleep and a gap to now. The Makefiles problem isn't a real problem. We can write a build system easily enough and we can even arrange to cross-port his patches. The big problem is the constant hassle about changes to the code. The big problem is the different interpretation of GPL, the rights we have - or not, etc. Yes. Well. If you prefer - do the contact yourself, then I wait what happens. Its not that that is number one on my list of things i would like to do. :) -- bye Joerg liw we have release cycles, that's why it takes so long to get a release out; if we had release race cars, things would go a lot faster pgpC2JJJPDF6T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Processed: Forwarding to the technical committee
On 10615 March 1977, Andreas Barth wrote: Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license for that, but well... Definitly you cannot revoke GPL for a old version to someone who actually received the old version. However, Joerg S could claim that he never really licensed it to the GPL (and then we have to prove he had), Umm. How could he ever really have success with it, distributing his cdrtools tarball since years with the GPL? That should be easy to prove otherwise IMO. -- bye Joerg vorlon since anyone who can get along with elmo must *surely* be part of the cabal. Overfiend vorlon: Not true. I've gotten along with elmo from time to time. We're just both ashamed of it. pgp5BDyHk83v6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3 Apr 2006, Ian Jackson said: Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main): Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even if there is no public repository of code in this new language? These arguments seemed entirely mystifying to me until I figured out what Manoj is trying to do. Manoj, you're trying to establish or find a rule which depends only on the direction of dependency interrelationships and formal copyright status, and other things that can be clearly determined without regard to actual existence of any software, usual or plausible use cases, and intents of packagers and users. Am I right ? Yes. I think I am fundamentally skeptical of a process that depends on the judgement of people, especially when conducted in an environment where such diverse views exist as were evinced in the GFDL vote. I also think of the effect it would have on people working on software and releasing it under a free license, if the wider community branded their work as non-0free anyway, through no fault of their own. If I write a free compiler/emulator/virtual machine generator (I actually have an unreleased UML/Xen one), but the only examples I can provide are seen to be toy ones, or there are better variants already around, why should my work not reach a community of users out there? Why would things change if third party decides to use my work for non-free purposes? Adding use cases and samples of third party software into the mix makes the classification process brittle, irreproducible, and controversial, and may end up penalizing authors of free software who want to reach the users in the community through Debian, Ubuntu, and other derived distributions. And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free input/output is still desirable, since it is a beachhead that can then be exploited for free purposes by someone out there, who may never be exposed to the software in question was its distribution to be severely limited. manoj -- If you really want pure ASCII, save it as text... or browse it with your favorite browser... -- Alexandre Maret [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Processed: Forwarding to the technical committee
On 4/4/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license for that, but well... I don't think the license is the issue here. If the code has been released under the GPL (with proper copyright notices and everything), then we have every right to modify it, and to distribute the modifications. The issue, here, is the potential for spurious legal harassment. On the plus side, harassing legal activities cost money, and create legal risks for the person engaging in them. This tends to limit their use. On the down side, the energies spent defending against such activities could be more fruitful if spent in other areas. Do we have a test suite of software, to check that these cdrtools are working properly? Because, if we had a good test suite, it wouldn't be hard to re-implement from scratch. (The hard part of re-implementing from scratch is finding and tracking down all the little bits and pieces that don't work quite right for somebody's special case.) -- Raul
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free input/output is still desirable, since it is a beachhead that can then be exploited for free purposes by someone out there, who may never be exposed to the software in question was its distribution to be severely limited. Has someone suggested that we should not build or distribute ndiswrapper? We've suggested that we not consider it an integral part of our free operating system, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. [P.S. despite the fact that my vote on the GFDL issue put me in an extreme minority, I do not have a problem with the outcome of that vote. But that's better discussed on other lists.] -- Raul
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 5 Apr 2006, Raul Miller stated: On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free input/output is still desirable, since it is a beachhead that can then be exploited for free purposes by someone out there, who may never be exposed to the software in question was its distribution to be severely limited. Has someone suggested that we should not build or distribute ndiswrapper? In Debian? Yes, I think that is exactly what we are talking about. We've suggested that we not consider it an integral part of our free operating system, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. No one ias asking it to be an integral part of Debian (like, Essential: Yes). We are asking to make it an Optional part of Debian. I see this as software that is free (it meets all aspects of the DFSG) that improves the quality of implmentation of the OS by allowing user to help themselves in their attempts to make the Debian OS run on certain hardware with less than stellar free software support. I hink that the Quality of implementation would suffer if we disallow this DFSG-compliant software from being a part of Debian. manoj -- As well look for a needle in a bottle of hay. Miguel de Cervantes Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
