Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Patrick Herzig wrote: FYI, Here's the full text: [...] http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:aaX81KBybOIJ:blog.kickino.org/+gfdl+compatible+license+savannahhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=2 is the google cache, http://rzlab.ucr.edu/debian/savannah_gnu_org_policy.html is a mirror of it in case the cache goes away. Don Armstrong -- We were at a chinese resturant. He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune cookie. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch31.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Affero General Public License
Glenn Maynard wrote: But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases. (Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is somewhat amusing ...) The difficulty here is that in the arcade machine/toll booth case, the person who (IMO) requires source access to exercise his freedoms is the machine _owner_ or toll booth operating company, not the player or tollee. An arcade owner isn't going to allow me to upload hacked firmware to his machines (sadly :-). How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two? Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Affero General Public License
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:07:08AM +, Gervase Markham wrote: Glenn Maynard wrote: But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases. (Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is somewhat amusing ...) The difficulty here is that in the arcade machine/toll booth case, the person who (IMO) requires source access to exercise his freedoms is the machine _owner_ or toll booth operating company, not the player or tollee. An arcade owner isn't going to allow me to upload hacked firmware to his machines (sadly :-). That's the it doesn't help argument: the argument that the distribution of source to end users doesn't actually give them the freedoms that the person who made the modifications had. It's been argued for web services, too. For example, Google providing the source to its database engine would be cool, but it wouldn't let me customize Google--only my own little useless copy of it, since I can't install my changes onto Google. How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two? I think that's an unnatural distinction. Both web users and arcade players are equally users; there are examples in both cases where providing source helps and where it doesn't. (I actually do know of arcade operators who have let players mess around with their machines. :) Also, web services aren't the problem, they're just the most common (today) example of a class of problems. Narrowing the restriction to web services means it's going to break down sooner or later, when a different incarnation of the same problem shows up. I think Josh's offering is a step forward in generalizing this. It still seems to cause fatal practical problems, though, hence my examples of toll booths and arcade machines. But, given the choice, I'd much rather see his version in GPLv3 than what's currently there. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Affero General Public License
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while other developers were not looking these people found a consensus to change what until then was the widely accepted meaning of the DFSG. I'm not extreme or loony, especially compared to your pressure to let all borderline cases into main, and there has never been any period in the last few years when -legal has been extreme or loony. I'm surprised by your scare quotes of consensus and if changing widely-accepted meanings troubles you, I think you should complain more about FSF supporters wanting to change free and software to make debian accept adware manuals. -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHP License for PHP Group packages
On 10553 March 1977, Charles Fry wrote: Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic discussion on the matter at debian-legal. So lets look at that license, not only for allow php group to use it in Debian, but also for others who made the mistake to use this license. Point 4 of it, as already pointed out by Don, is broken. Yes, there is other software with a similar problem, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt get fixed too. Drop the nor may PHP appear anywhere in its name part to make it better, thats the real bad thing in it. Point 5 the last sentence is bad. Point 6 is broken for anything !PHP. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team. The whole part after the last - line is also useless for nearly anything out there, but except the first sentence they dont matter. I dont think the php group really wants to take the blame for all the bullshit people may produce, using one of those php licenses. IMO not ok for PEAR, any random phpFOO, but of course still ok for php itself. -- bye Joerg helix doogie: you have an interesting definition for 'interact with people' that means 'make them want to jump off cliffs' pgpjcBHyXCYRI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation
Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was looking at my project registration wrote to me: quote The decision about the licenses of the project documentations was a bit prematurate and concerned discussions are in progress. So nothing has changed until now. If you are still interested in hosting your project on Savananh, feel free to re-register. /quote Regards, Felix -- | Felix Kühling [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fxk.de.vu | | PGP Fingerprint: 6A3C 9566 5B30 DDED 73C3 B152 151C 5CC1 D888 E595 |
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Raul Miller wrote: Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA. The big deal here is that if someone sues Adobe, Adobe doesn't have to incur huge legal fees defending themselves. Since it's free software, why would they want to? If that is were actually what they wrote, I think a lot more people here would be willing to accept it. E.g, they could have said: Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides. However, they did not say that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please update the license text
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:45:52 -0500 Charles Fry wrote: severity 332606 important [...] retitle 331418 'please update the license text' thanks Hi, For all current RC bugs in Pear packages that use the PHP License, I am downgrading the severity to important, and requesting that debian/copyright be updated to the new PHP License, version 3.01. This new license has been modified making it equally suitible for use by PHP Group software as for PHP itself. Equally non-free, IMO. We reviewed the new license and found several problems, one of which (clause #4) applies to PHP Group software as well (including PHP itself). As a result a bunch of bugs are *downgraded*? This is not encouraging... Am I the only one who thinks PHP is currently non-free and its license should be fixed? If someone listening shares my opinion on PHP License version 3.01, please let other people know: reply now to this message and state that you think this license should be fixed! As I reminder, I here summarize my opinion on PHP License version 3.01. for PHP itself and for other PHP Group software, clause 4 of the PHP license version 3.01 fails to comply with DFSG#3, as it's a restriction on modified works which is not allowed by DFSG#4. When the license is applied to anything that is *not* PHP Group software, several additional issues appear. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00271.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html for further details... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnA7YQOyJXy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:21:44PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: If that is were actually what they wrote, I think a lot more people here would be willing to accept it. E.g, they could have said: Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides. However, they did not say that. This still affects claims made by the licensor against a licensee. On its face, it doesn't seem as big a deal, since it ends up near the licensee. But as a user of the software, merely using or distributing the software should not subject me, if I become a defendant, to the licensor's notions of correct venue law. Compare to: 6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Scotland to decide any action or claim directed against the Licensor. which is clearly only for claims against the licensor. However, the explicit naming of venue seems like a problem if the program is forked[1]. So, how about (IANAL): Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement against the Licensor shall be brought in the courts of the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides. (I'm not sure, however, if resides is a legally meaningful term, when the defendant isn't an individual.) [1] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and followups. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
