On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about here
is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the IP (sic)
field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
How do you define an entire work?
I've been told repeatedly that one
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people to be
able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed audio or video
Says who? You have to distribute the it in a form that's ready for
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
in the IP (sic) field
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
That is your belief. I could release content (textures and level
geometry) that I have been creating for my game right now, and it could
be used by at least 6 other game engines, and a variety of utility
programs.
They
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged. Thus if the game code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there seem to
be quite a lot of games that have a different license for the engine
and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be
getting more
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL.
I too have heard people from
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
the
binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is
a
rectriction?
I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
server to indicate those other ways.
The license does not require you
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than
the cost of providing the network
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the following scenario:
Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool,
which happens to be agpl.
Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both
directions costs, and it
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project.
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Joachim Breitner [EMAIL
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
(generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at
any time that the
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it were just running on your server, there would be no distribution
requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving
data from the user, which is different.
This is the core of the issue. If
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080902 11:23]:
In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
are granted the four software freedoms.
It's not the users of the software, it's the users
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
personal concerns. Say I want to create a 3D virtual world based on
the IRC network, using PySoy as the base framework for that, PySoy
being AGPLv3 will force
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country)
personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able
to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for
example.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service.
How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code?
These are technical challenges, not legal
This thread has slipped into absurdity.
These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright holders
are just biting at the bit to take people to court retroactively for
short-term lack of compliance at no fault of the software modifier.
The GPL could be abused by a copyright
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
The problem is:
what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon
(or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)?
Am I failing to comply with the AfferoGPLv3, unless I immediately shut
the
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
It says that I must offer an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of [my] version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge.
There's no indication that I can delay this
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM, David Martínez Martí
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then, if I download it, and I made some modifications at the source code,
the AGPL (under certain conditions) will bind me to publish the source code.
Note that the (under certain conditions) is offering remote
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with the AGPLv3 is that you can argue the distribution
requirement is onerous. It may be a bit more onerous for a dissident
Since anyone can get a free, anonymous account at any number of free VCS
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:46 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced
distribution of source code is a desirable effect, but it's
distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp?
PySoy.
We are distributed via SVN
is less work not to mention sans being put
in the proprietary software repository.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?):
2008/8/25 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged
It would seem as consensus has been reached.
Once confirmed, someone should update
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, there is an very important difference. The GPL ensures that everyone
is allowed all the things they would be if there was no license at all.
That is not true. There are countless public domain works which the
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is an appeal to authority: who drafted the license terms, and who
has okayed them, doesn't have any impact on the facts about the
effects of the license terms on a work. We're trying to determine the
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the case. You are not required by the AGPLv3 section 13 to
ensure the code is made available to anyone unless you have modified the
code *and* you're allowing remote users to use that modified version
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A new question has come to my mind: What would happen if you run an
AGPLv3 program that was modified by someone else.
I asked an identical question a few months ago. I'll try to explain it as
it was explained to me;
Cast:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David Martínez Martí
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with this license is, that anyone that tries to use and/or
modify it must distribute it to third parties. I don't think that can be
free.
This is not the case. You are not required by the AGPLv3
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
The situation is different with AfferoGPLv3 section 13, where just
using a modified version of the work forces you to convey the
Corresponding Source, from the same server (which could just be from
impractical to
You're taking quite a few steps forward on logic here, let's rewind a bit.
I'm not sure that that's the case, but that seems like a pretty clear
contamination of unrelated software, which would break DFSG 9.
It does not change the license of that software in other uses, it only
applies the
To cut down on number of emails, I'm replying to both Miriam and Francesco
below:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
But there's a significant difference in reliability when the
Corresponding Source is hosted on the *same* server where the
AfferoGPLv3'ed
Sorry for any etiquette foobars I may have made, I wrote that email in a bit
of a hurry this morning.
So I still don't understand the original claim that connecting a 3d IM
client to an AGPLv3'd GTalk server would allow Google to obtain the
source of the client. Anyone?
When the client
Greets. It's been awhile since I unsubscribed to this list, so a quick
introduction is that I'm the maintainer of the PySoy project, the game
engine being discussed here.
There are two issues being discussed, one is what the AGPLv3 means, and
another on how it applies to PySoy. I'll only
Has anyone looked at Disney's Panda3d Public License Version 2.0?
http://www.panda3d.org/license.php
Clause 4 seems worrysome (requires sending signifigant changes to Disney).
Other parts seem redundant with copyright law.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian?
For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging).
Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial
package, and we would like your
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over
it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where
those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it this is free
because it's GPL hurts truely
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That
doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with
a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has
been infringing all
While Firefox itself is licensed under a free license, there's an issue
in the way the Mozilla foundation designed it to include their own
package system for extensions and themes.
Take Firefox 1.5 for example, I've had it for a few hours, downloaded a
few extensions.. whoops. Looking at the
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take
my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)
I
44 matches
Mail list logo
