remains Free by the DFSG definition. Same with a renamed ion derivative, if
you derive from a renamed ion and violate its license, the renamed ion
remains Free.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
no value other than being a debating
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:05:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note that
the mkcfm license issue doesn't affect the X server package so much as
xfonts-utils.
Thanks. I'll correct that.
Often it's
interested in this problem would put the time in to
contacting SGI and trying to politely get it relicensed) and it's a far
more important licensing problem affecting the X codebase than the mkcfm
license.
- David Nusinow
p.s. Anyone reading this thread via MJ Ray's blog might want to note
for the Debian project. They have a
say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of
the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
. That they are mandating
this is acceptible and is to be encouraged for an event connected with
Debian.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:13:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
used in conjunction with the presentation
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don't
relate to the simple
is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying
non-freeness in terms of basic freedoms has been done to my personal
satisfaction in this case, but the fact that people constantly are falling
back on the cost argument shows that the word hasn't gotten out.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
freedoms. Nor
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:30:47PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software if they choose. We can't completely
protect people from being sued
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:44:05AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 15 September 2005 23:53, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are free
to not install such software
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:56:34AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** David Nusinow ::
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:46:49PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
I think we need to consider the point
that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause
may be important for a program author to successfully defend
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, the choice of venue clauses don't impose any sort of cost on
the freedoms we expect from software.
Yes they do. You have to suffer the choice-of-venue clause in order
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
useful information.
Thank you Mr. Pedant. If you'll examine the grandparent mail
the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
pleading address this?
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
- David Nusinow
court. I doubt this would
be a very weak argument to begin with though.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
citizen
and resident.
Please use a non-broken mail program.
How does a choice of venue clause compel you to go to the US then? The US
courts still can't force your country's police to come after you.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
if they need to defend their copyright.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:31:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point
that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may be
important
the binary nvidia drivers which I can not support in *any way at
all*.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:50:56AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
the magic numbers mean. The hardware
section.
Thanks for the great doc.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cases that
you cite.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the
only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a
far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the
only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a
far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself.
- David Nusinow
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
Context is everything.
- David Nusinow
split the non-free stuff out from the Free stuff. As it stands,
you're probably going to have to put it in non-free.
- David Nusinow
, with actual licenses and writing after release.
- David Nusinow
make due with
what we've got, the same way we do everything else.
- David Nusinow
code. Just because there are requirements of
people receiving the license to give up something does not make it non-free.
- David Nusinow
of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help.
Actually, I agree with the GNU FDL position, and I even submitted a draft
version of a small portion of it to Manoj while he was in the writing phase of
it. :-)
- David Nusinow
home next month.
Both of those are great choices. Thank you very much for doing this.
- David Nusinow
summary of the contested
points?
- David Nusinow
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
One
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
So we should be willing to give up more
that impossible.
- David Nusinow
review, they could join the discussion. I could see posting these things
to -devel or -devel-announce, but this strikes me as rather ugly.
- David Nusinow
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
then I'll believe you.
I've thought about
so much ire within the rest of the project towards this
list.
- David Nusinow
on this. is an
overstatement? Sounds pretty benign to me. Again, keeping score of a few active
-legal participants isn't enough to claim clear consensus for the whole project
on whether something is non-free.
- David Nusinow
opinion on
the silence is a reflection of this lack of communication, not some hand-waving
fake telepathy[1].
- David Nusinow
[1] I was happy to see the Dictator Test announced in DWN. I think that's a very
positive step in the right direction.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:02:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
that there's a silent
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DD's
have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
that's
grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:43:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:35:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have
nothing to
fear from
sort of amendment be written according to the real meat of
the issue, rather than simply saying The license can't have a choice of venue
clause.
- David Nusinow
if you really wanted to do so (and could find some genius to pay you for
the privledge.) This seems like a critical difference. Maybe a different
analogy is necessary, because I like the idea very much.
- David Nusinow
needs refinement, because as it is,
it strikes me as rather crude.
- David Nusinow
of intent from the author is
probably going to be very important in these cases. The desert island test
definitely does not demonstrate effective discrimination in this fashion though.
- David Nusinow
this argument is invalid because while you may have
the freedom to associate with only certain people under the GPL, you do not
have the freedom to associate with them in exactly the way you want.
- David Nusinow
GPL instead of
BSD. This doesn't make the requirement non-free.
- David Nusinow
no free answer. That makes me think that the
question which opens this can of worms -- forced distribution -- is
probably non-free.
I don't think it opens any can of worms greater than the one we've already
opened by allowing copyleft.
- David Nusinow
is
discriminating against people who somehow lose all copies of the source to
their modifications after distributing modified binaries.
While licenses that don't require this are perhaps more free I don't feel
that they fail the DFSG.
- David Nusinow
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
QPL.
That only comes automatically
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
the initial author with copies on request.
So is the timeframe (i.e. forever) important?
- David Nusinow
not be payed directly
to the original licensor, but isn't it still a fee by this definition?
- David Nusinow
the GPL in order to do this legally.
But your behavior is still constrained in that (in the case of the GPL or QPL)
if you modify the software and distribute it you must agree to the terms of the
license. I don't understand how this is not a promise.
- David Nusinow
exactly? If you fail to comply with the
terms of the license you're in violation of the copyright. You never made a
promise to the lessor with the QPL by your interpretation of the word, so I see
no difference here between the two licenses that would allow one to be non-free.
- David Nusinow
, among others, triggers the fear that we will
never release because of the constant wrangingling over freeness. The fact that
this sort of wrangling is done based on tests (Chinese Dissident, etc) which
few are aware of makes the situation worse.
- David Nusinow
and other text data), then xfree86 should also be
acknowlegded in the same way.
Please see the disucssion on debian-legal about the X-Oz license for
discussion about this, specifically Branden's message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html
- David
and
potentially use it. Commentary is appreciated. The original HTML text of
this license is located at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html for any who
are interested.
- David Nusinow
---
All the source code and source patches that X-Oz
66 matches
Mail list logo
