Re: The legality of wodim
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : So make sure that wodim prints something like: This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original software and it mets the rules. Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements like this one.. Finally stop spreding your FUD, the correctness of this statement is verified by the debian bug tracking system. Just because no one bothers filing the bugs against the origional anymore doesn't mean that they don't exist... or have you been through the bugs and verified that none of them exist in your cdrtools? If not, kindly shut the hell up. The fact that it's called wodim, is a perfectly legitimate fork, and isn't actually affecting your reputation at all (though you are, through prolonged idiocy and not bothering to take any notice of what anyone tells you, just re-asserting that you and you alone can read the GPL and that the rest of the world is wrong), and that it's being actively maintained is enough. That it also mentions that it is not in anyway affiliated with you should make you very happy. Now, please stop flooding the lists with rubbish and do something productive. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:56PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL), and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach the terms of the CDDL. Please read the GPL: The GPL does _not_ require the build scripts to be under GPL. The GPL only requieres them to be distributed. I believe your interpretation of the GPL and the interpretation by the sane world differ wildly... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Would suggest that the build scripts need to be distributed under the same licence as the program, so, that'd be the GPL then. Please go and read the GPL and stop telling others to. Stop making stuff up because it suits *your* development model. Thanks, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unauthorized use of debian logo?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:18:37AM -0400, Quintin Riis wrote: Whilst searching google for a linux monopoly clone, I found the following site that appears to be using the debian logo in their artwork. http://www.adultmatchmaker.biz/ Thoughts? It's slow. But, yeah - does look very much like the debian logo sitting on a box of the same colour... and that links to a .exe file. Hmm. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. For those DPLs that should know better... he has a fair point. Rather than debunking, how about participating? Cheers, Brett. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not allowed to offer it. Then you offer it on your server and some of your customers has a huge problem with that software and wants to sue someone to cover their losses. Now the company that developed the software says you were never allowed to offer it and with their own version your customer wouldn't have got into trouble. I don't think they'd be able to make a case with that, unless they can prove that we seriously tampered with their software and that our version is totally different from theirs. Since they've been doing most of the packaging work themselves, I think that's going to be very, *very* hard. If I ask you to please do something, I can't then suddenly turn around and say that you shouln't have actually been doing that something. That would be dishonest, and I can't win a case in court by being dishonest. Well, is there a shiny piece of paper, or verifiable gpg signed message, or anything else actually tangable that could be taken to court that says this guy there said it was OK? See I'm talking about a legal problem that isn't solvable by just removing software. No you're not. You're talking about an issue that only exists in fantasy. I think that you're missing the word currently in that sentence. Cheers, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee. Well, this is non-free as upstream may have died, and if you can't distribute without distributing to upstream, it makes forking impractical too. If upstream is dead then you're fully knackered though. GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the recipient. You claim this is not a fee. Well, the recipient can't be dead, otherwise they wouldn't be a recipient :) I entirely fail to understand the difference here. In both cases I have had to pass something of value on to people I might not have wanted to pass it on to. If you don't want to pass it on, don't put it under a Free Software licence *grin*. (Or use the BSD style licences). - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCkYkXEh8oWxevnjQRAhEXAKC0z8k8qd/CvpZ3B3KBFt23xYkREQCgw/eM NUVpX9kAxFRiU1Yyj3UnPUI= =7lo/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:34:24PM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: Computer Associates released Ingres under this license: http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/ http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Collateral.asp?CID=61384 Is this really free software license? If it is, who will package Ingres, then? Looks reasonable to me, the only thing that caught my eye was that there's no choice of venue for legal action, and that legal action can not occur until 1 year after the piece of code has entered the program (I assume this is to give time to remove the code, not sure though). IANAL, though, so I could be wrong. Thanks, -- Brett Parker
Re: Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:17:06AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:32:20PM +, Brett Parker wrote: Looks reasonable to me, the only thing that caught my eye was that there's no choice of venue for legal action Choice of venue is widely (not quite unanimously) considered non-free, so I'm curious: why are you suggesting that *lack* of choice of venue is a problem? Ah, maybe I misunderstood that then ;) and that legal action can not occur until 1 year after the piece of code has entered the program No Recipient will bring a legal action under this License more than one year after the cause of action arose. That says that legal action must happen within one year of infringement, not that it must wait for one year. I don't know if that's free or not; I also have no idea if it's enforcable. OK - maybe I read that bit wrong then, it was a rather quick read through. I'm not sure that that's enforcable, but it seems an odd thing for a licence to hold. Sorry for my mis-reading of that. Thanks for putting me on the straight and narrow. -- Brett Parker
