Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
Quoting Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages license proliferation. GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public. We don't want that. The GPL does not require this. I re-read GPL today (after few years), and yes, you are right. Sorry about this. I actually thought that section 3.b of GPL is mandatory, but now I see that we could choose between 3.a, 3.b and 3.c - where 3.a and 3.c look quite suitable to cover all our needs. We want that modifications only need to be disclosed to the person that you give executable to (point 3). This is what the GPL requires. [The difference is that the GPL requires that you be allowed to redistribute to others the source that you have been given, but that's most likely what you wanted anyway.] Understood. Thanks for your help and clearing this up. I hope I can convice other members of the project that GPL is the right thing to do. Guys? M. This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 22:59:46 +0100, Milan Babuskov escribía: The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages license proliferation. GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public. No, it does not. It only requires that, if a modified version is published, it is distributed under the terms of the GPL. Licenses that require that modifications are published are routinely rejected by Debian. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
El viernes, 24 de marzo de 2006 a las 10:18:14 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía: Licenses that require that modifications are published are routinely rejected by Debian. More properly, Works distributed under licenses that... -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
Hi, Milan, [Yet another cross-post to debian-legal, whose comments are needed at the lower part of this mail. Thanks] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Damyan Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes. If possible, I intend to convince everyone to dual license FR under GPL and someting else. How? If IBPPL1.0 is incompatible with GPL? Whatever licenses are chosen for FR they all must be compatible with the licensing of IBPP, right? If IBPPLx.y is made GPL-compatible, theh this is no problem of course. I for one don't run for GPL for FR, neither IBPP. I'd welcome GPL, as well as any other license that satisfies Debian Free Software Guidelines. Even if we agree IBPPL1.0 is not compatible with GPL, what about (modified)BSD/Expat? I can't see any gotchas in combining those with IBPPL1.0 Do you mean: if IBPP is licensed under BSD/Expat license? Well, then there is no problem. BSD license is not viral, it only requires that license text is included in code. It puts no restrictions on embedding it in larger work and relicensing that. Or you meant for us to release FR under BSD/expat? That one is out of the question. The later. (This is just to clarify what I meant. Not that I insist on FR being licensed under Expat or something) Authors. MPL/IDPL say that modifications must be given to anyone you provide with executable version, while GPL says that modifications must be given to the public. You provide changes to the GPL-ed code to the public and changes to IBPP to its authors. What's wrong with this? FR would not have a single license. Parts of it's code would be licensed under IBPP license, and it wouldn't be included in main. I am not sure I understand you completely. There is ongoing effort to mage IBPP's license suitable for including IBPP sources and programs using them in Debian/main. If these efforts give some result, FR's license is still a problem (being IDPL). That's why I try to discuss FR's licensing at the same time as IBPP's licensing - to move two tasks in parallel and save a couple of months. I also understand and respect Nando's wishes about commercial use of parts or entire FR, and I somewhat even agree on that. So, the solution that would suit us is: 1. IBPP changing the about mentioned constraint And FR stays IDPL? Still problematic for inclusion in Debian. No, I've re-read IDPL again, and it does have problems. What is the difference with (modified)BSD/Expat-like license plus the requirement to publish changes (if this desired)? Here's what we want, but IANAL so I can't make a license out of it: 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated to publish them 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version available, he must make the modifications available to the same person he made executable version available to. 4. no warranty IDPL is close to that, but it has problems. Mostly the Californian courts, US regulations (not needed at all IMO), and some other problems already noted by Debian team. Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). Thanks in advance, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
El jueves, 23 de marzo de 2006 a las 15:55:55 +0200, Damyan Ivanov escribía: 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated to publish them 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version available, he must make the modifications available to the same person he made executable version available to. 4. no warranty Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages license proliferation. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
Jacobo Tarrio wrote: 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated to publish them 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version available, he must make the modifications available to the same person he made executable version available to. 4. no warranty Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages license proliferation. GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public. We don't want that. We want that modifications only need to be disclosed to the person that you give executable to (point 3). Do you suggest we make a modification to GPL? It would be GPL + few changes. -- Milan Babuskov http://swoes.blogspot.com/ http://www.flamerobin.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Milan Babuskov wrote: Jacobo Tarrio wrote: 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is. 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated to publish them 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version available, he must make the modifications available to the same person he made executable version available to. 4. no warranty Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it). The GPL itself covers these points. In principle, debian-legal discourages license proliferation. GPL does cover it, but GPL requires that modifications are made public. We don't want that. The GPL does not require this. We want that modifications only need to be disclosed to the person that you give executable to (point 3). This is what the GPL requires. [The difference is that the GPL requires that you be allowed to redistribute to others the source that you have been given, but that's most likely what you wanted anyway.] Do you suggest we make a modification to GPL? It would be GPL + few changes. You really don't want to get into the business of modifying licenses. If there's something that the GPL disallows, but you you really want to grant to your users, you can do so by a special exception in the copyright statement, but you should probably talk to the FSF or the SFLC before doing that (or some other legal practitioner versed in the area of Free Software licencing.) Don Armstrong -- My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders of the modern world. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
