the primary motivator for most people much more than
it is in the case of charity.
I can't say that I understand your by contrast here. There are
certainly differences, but, with the exception of tax considerations,
most of the things you list don't really seem to be among them.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson
).
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
browsers *other
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
I see. Where are the archive maintainers
browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lose.
debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final
decision lies with the archive maintainers.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
non-free--it would serve no purpose
if it was freely usable.
For the sake of my sanity, can we not use the abbreviation OU when the
two things between which it's disambiguating are Official Use and
Open Use? :)
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
autobuilds.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/yaboot/doc/yaboot-howto.shtml/ch2.en.shtml
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-ignore.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not grant the rights to distribute
and sell the modified code, just the distribution without fee.
I'm not sure I believe Theo's interpretation of without fee in that
position in the sentence, though. It looks free to me.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:50:38AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 03:42:42PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
1. Send your derivative work (in the most suitable format such as
sgml) to the LDP (Linux
likes.
(Please cc me on replies; I'm afraid I ran out of stamina for the bulk
of debian-legal a while back.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:30:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Right now, I've put all GFDL documents without Invariant Sections in
main, regardless of the version; if a concrete project-wide decision
is or has been made
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
The following licence is used on a number of LDP documents:
Please freely copy and distribute (sell or give away) this document in any
format. It's requested that corrections and/or comments be fowarded to the
document
it as they wish.
Also, if libraries want to discourage people from printing out the GNU
Emacs manual, they can and probably will simply put up a sign saying
please don't print out large documents unnecessarily, as it wastes
paper. That's not a technical measure.
--
Colin Watson
?
Assuming my understanding is correct, what would be the best strategy
for approaching Amstrad to make the minimal change in order to have
Spectrum ROMs in main?
[Please follow up to -legal, but in that case please cc me because I'm
not subscribed.]
--
Colin Watson
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:54:43PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hm, it seems that we're actually a surprisingly large part of the way to
being DFSG-free here. There are two stumbling blocks:
* There's no explicit permission to distribute as part
]
... so it appears to have been bounced to -legal by the person behind
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
assume this
now) that everything not signed GNU/GPL is not free which is for sure
not correct.
This is absolutely not true, and I know Henning doesn't think that. The
BSD licence, for example, is free.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for a
| copy of it, you must send one.
which we (i.e., the consensus interpretation of the DFSG) flatly
disagree with.
Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified)
Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
example of a DFSG-free licence.
--
Colin
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:36:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
EUR250,- is not much money and until the replacement has been written,
Debian is without
/social_contract/
This is kinda meta-DFSG and kinda not. it has me confused.
It's no more restrictive than the GPL, at least ...
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:35:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 03:56:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
[please CC me on replies]
Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify,
or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may
.
This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go
in main.
This is all just straight out of the Artistic License. DFSG 1 only says
that you can't prohibit selling software as a component of a
distribution, not that you can't prohibit charging for the package
itself.
--
Colin
/rfc/211.pod explains the problems with the original
Artistic, and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html links to
the revised versions.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we have is a corporation claiming its patent
covers JPEG, and we all know how they would never lie about that . . .
I've had the impression that the remaining life of the patent is really
quite short, too, and that they're going after people with money while
they can.
--
Colin Watson
that
instead.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to
overreact.
Also, it is really quite unlikely that the DFSG will be changed.
(Branden will no doubt be able to say this with more cynicism than I can
muster ...)
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
-licensed document
may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
copy of the license.
That doesn't sound to me like the default is to have both applied. It
seems to me that this package is OK for main.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome.
Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out
recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be
resolved.
Not quite
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 04:21:16PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I have not yet checked if we have perl modules that are only under
Artistic, and not dual licensed under GPL, but we probably do.
Yes, we do. I maintain one of them (libgetargs-long-perl). :(
--
Colin Watson
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:38:30AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
gained specifically from
this signal that it
should be in main, that there's a deficiency in the DFSG, that there's a
deficiency in my understanding, or something else?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the second is not (it requires modified versions to be approved by
the author before distribution). Can somebody please confirm this?
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[cc list trimmed]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:03:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
if they don't contain
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the
problems are with invariant sections used on anything but rather small
sections of text (typically
, and will add my own reply in a moment.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Forwarded message from David Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:48:03 -0500
To: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LDP
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote:
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Would you mind if I forwarded this e-mail of mine on to -legal? It seems
as good a place as any to start the discussion.
Please do. I would like to be part
to limitation in content modifications.
With no options exercised, I believe the OPL is free (dim memory of a
conversation with Bradley Kuhn here, but it may have got garbled in
transit). -legal?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that licence a
copyright infringement?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is that someone could change the text in various ways
and continue to call it the GPL.
Then perhaps it should just say that (modified versions of this license
may not be called the GPL without prior written permission of the Free
Software Foundation or similar).
--
Colin Watson
for Debian to
distribute the JDK in non-free. Somebody on -java is likely to know for
sure.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that we, as a community, never see. If anything,
this is a requirement I want to tighten up.
This I'm not sure about. -legal?
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/archive.debian.org/.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lists.
So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
by Debian to the Usenet News! We did not post to the News, did we?
It is Debian that posted it!
Bored now. Actually, it isn't.
--
Colin Watson
that this licence is GPL-compatible (the only real
restriction in it is just clause 2(a) of the GPL), but that takes more
legal care to check.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in touch with the upstream author.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for permission.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it to sign an agreement is rather onerous (DFSG 7, Distribution of
License). There's also stuff about not framing ATT's website and
monitoring the website for patent infringement notices, none of which
really belongs in a DFSG-free licence.
--
Colin Watson
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was about to ITP icoutils (http://www.student.lu.se/~nbi98oli/src/),
but I had a last-minute worry about the licence. It's mostly GPL, except
that some files in the source are distributed under the Wine licence.
The upstream author's now released a new
it freely.
It's fine for Debian.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/dupload.conf for whether or
not you're a US developer.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
file needs to have a real copyright statement in it or else the package
can't be distributed at all; I'd suggest just copying the two short
paragraphs from the README above.
I've cc'd this to debian-legal for their opinions.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL
a
licence non-DFSG-free.
I urge the Debian community to reject this license; it looks to me like it
might fail DFSG #9.
License Must Not Contaminate Other Software? Really? I think it would
be a strange interpretation of a Distribution of UW-IMAP that extended
to other Debian packages.
--
Colin
, and you can make it into proprietary
software if you like. But that doesn't stop it being DFSG-free.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the copyright holders.
... it's reasonable to assume that derivations that are distributed
without charge or at cost are permitted.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, according to the lawyer you quote, the Cyrus
licence seeks to restrict commercial use to let them make more money.
The intents aren't really that similar.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
presumably you have something else to offer. Concentrate on that.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
have something else to offer. Concentrate on that.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
component of my operating system, and thus defeat the GPL. This is
obviously not the intent of the license.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Moffitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
begin Colin Watson quotation:
[trn license]
+Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
+otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
+gained specifically from the use or reproduction of this software
65 matches
Mail list logo
