Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider for a moment a license that said something like You must
either distribute under this license with source, or under a proprietary
license without source., (where the license is otherwise
BSD/MIT/X11-like, and with a
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider for a moment a license that said something like You must
either distribute under this license with source, or under a proprietary
license without
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:37:05PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing
GPLed code in proprietary software for example ?
That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned
about
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
same license you received the software under, so DFSG 3 is satisfied,
But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
the code under
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:17:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:22:34PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Please forgive a new subscriber if this subject already has been debated to
death. In that case, just let me know and I'll quietly crawl away again.
Ok, here's
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
same license you received the software under, so DFSG 3 is satisfied,
But you're not. The
gbbus. jequnxmc afeyn Ubkurlbue gfdijmayd
Do you know that the con g r ess. just
passed a new law and you can
xzyresjn, ypvfyd obbrnirq omexd
r e f
inance your - mo.
r t gage with Z ER O. ra
t e?
Viwmbjel kztto, montq Zokjxcl oieooxcxh
More then 300,000 families used
this offer last month.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:06AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:17:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm not a Debian guru, but I scanned through the list of apps depending
on
curl to see what licenses they use, and I stopped when I had collected
On 2004-08-19 08:06:27 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I still wonder what this means for europe, where assigning copyright
seems to
be illegal or something.
Measures with similar effect seem to be possible in other European
jurisdictions. See the FSFE's work on the FLA.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
the code under a completely difference license; for example, you can't
link the code with GPL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
correct, it would be a very easy loophole for people to exploit, using
GPL-compatible library layers to sanitize the licenses of library
dependencies.
But in fact, the GPL's definition
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
same license you received
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
the code under a completely
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
same license you received the software under, so DFSG 3 is satisfied,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
your QPLed work, you have the
Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
To distribute the modified (combined) version of your QPL'd work under a
proprietaty license?
In other words, if I submit a patch to
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DFSG #5. Discrimination against a person or groups of persons. In this
case, the group that contains !(initial developer). A common definition of
discrimination in the sense of exclusion is that exclusion is discrimination
when it makes the
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
powerfull have the right to get their licence
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:45:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the
original
code, or equaly so. But
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how this makes it
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that any license that compels modifications to be under
anything other than a copyleft is problematic. Copyleft is only
allowed because it is explicitly grandfathered in by DFSG #10.
Oh, come
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:42:36PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:45:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Now, you may claim that the patch may
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
To distribute the modified (combined) version of your QPL'd work under a
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin
myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
from Raul Miller is
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:33:13AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3]
As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because
some people were saying that there
Sven Luther writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft
sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then venue shopped for
a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not Free. It gives these grants:
1) Distribute with source, passing this license along.
2) or, if you're Bob, under a proprietary license without source.
Now I have only one grant of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Now consider a similar license with one change: only the original
developer may release under a proprietary license. Such a change
reduces the number of people who can take the software proprietary. It
seems
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that
it's the requirement that I must grant extra permissions which is
non-free.
What is the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that
it's the requirement that I must grant extra
* David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-17 15:23]:
The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
that Debian should have _some_ logo that is DFSG-free, and that
the license of the open logo should be changed to
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that
it's the
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
It isn't. The part of my message that
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:09, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and
granting of extra freedoms?
Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a permissive license to
all code you have ever
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 05:21:16PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-17 15:23]:
The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
that Debian should
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
that's not Free. The QPL says BSD to inria/cristal, copyleft/patch
to everyone else, and that pair must be passed along -- that must,
that added restriction, is the non-free part.
I'm not sure about this.
As stated, that must is inherent in copyright
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
correct, it would be a very easy loophole for people to exploit, using
GPL-compatible library layers to sanitize the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
correct, it would be a very easy loophole for people to exploit, using
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:09, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and
granting of extra freedoms?
Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
It isn't. The part of my message that
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Nope. Under QPL#3, I can only distribute my changes as patch files; I
can't distribute the work with my changes incorporated. However, the
original author can, since I'm required to give him special permission
to do so under
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, so by arguing that way, we could bring this clause to be modified by
the upstream author, could we not ?
Yes, you could probably trick them into changing licenses by convincing
them that the license says something that it
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:47:42PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
If not, for example, this would seem to imply that software under the GPL
with a special exception releasing John Smith from the requirement to
release
source would fail.
I think that's clearly silly, because the same
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
When using dynamic linking that is not necessarily the case. Most
dynamic linkers use lazy loading of libraries, such that the openssl
libraries would not actually be mapped in to the process address space
until one of its
Here's the snarly bit:
Take a copy of curl, not built with ssl support. Build your GPLed
application, linking it to this curl. There should unarguably be no
problems here - everything involved is GPL-compatible.
Now, go and build a copy of curl that is linked to openssl. Install
that one
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:59:44PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I didn't say anything about derived works. Neither does the GPL when
talking about source code.
The GPL also doesn't define source code to include all modules it
uses, it defines it to include all modules it contains.
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:59:44PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I didn't say anything about derived works. Neither does the GPL when
talking about source code.
The GPL also doesn't define source code to include all modules it
uses, it defines it
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:26:43AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For one thing, it's absolutely not possible to run the binary in
such a way that openssl is not part of the process image.
Since when is Debian distributing linked process images?
I have
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
When using dynamic linking that is not necessarily the case. Most
dynamic linkers use lazy loading of libraries, such that the openssl
libraries would not actually be mapped in to the
Måns Rullgård wrote:
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Symbol references are not necessarily resolved at that time, unless
you define LD_BIND_NOW or are using prelinking. There's really no
method of doing lazy linking as you suggest with C, since it would
either fail (such as with
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, a more direct answer is that your original question about
the difference between grants of permissions and freedoms is
irrelevant. I was and am talking about the difference between a grant
of extra permissions and a compelled grant
* Andrew Suffield:
Here's the snarly bit:
Take a copy of curl, not built with ssl support. Build your GPLed
application, linking it to this curl. There should unarguably be no
problems here - everything involved is GPL-compatible.
Now, go and build a copy of curl that is linked to openssl.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
free because we explicitly say it is is insane.
I am hardly the first person to bring this up
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:47:42PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
If not, for example, this would seem to imply that software under the GPL
with a special exception releasing John Smith from the requirement to
release
source would fail.
I
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary
software helps free software.
Because the proprietary version can only
59 matches
Mail list logo
