is
the primary, fundamental goal.
I do think these two cases should be considered independently. The
provide the source to users of a webpage discussion revolves around
#1, which I think is distinct, and doesn't help #2 at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
by descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an
encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing,
deactivating, or impairing a technological measure effectively
controlling access to a work.
This, I like--a big DMCA waiver.
--
Glenn Maynard
that the license is
upwards-compatible (so we don't have the OpenSSL contact every upstream
author deal come about when GPLv3 comes about), with this bit being
handy but very secondary.
--
Glenn Maynard
already discussed.
--
Glenn Maynard
).
This was most directly disagreeing with:
That, in itself, makes a good argument for why the author should have
no ability to place an obligation on anybody under a Free Software
license.
--
Glenn Maynard
been discussed
recently--search recent archives for grandfather--so I won't go there.)
But in the meantime
phpnuke should have the right to stay in main, as it it technically GLP
compilant, we liked or not.
No software has any right to be in main to begin with.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:54:15AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, the user of the software already has rights under fair use to
modify it, before even agreeing to the license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00039.html
--
Glenn Maynard
. Software gets developed only to scratch
personal itches.
This sure sounds like a (poor) argument against open source in general.
--
Glenn Maynard
all know it to be false in that
case; so how are web apps so different?
--
Glenn Maynard
in itself
constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim,
but it is not good for people to start making the claim.
I wouldn't say it's distribution, but copying.
How does having access to copy a binary imply access to source code?
--
Glenn Maynard
; the GPL goes far enough. I
just don't think this particular argument is valid.)
--
Glenn Maynard
.
Of course, there are cases of web apps that can be run just as well on my
local webserver, but I think they're a small minority. (It's this group
that you're describing in your other examples, but I think it's the less
significant category.)
--
Glenn Maynard
not get an official position on this, don
the sombrero and settle it, so we can at least stop debating the wording?
--
Glenn Maynard
in Branden's bug
report: that it can't stay in main.)
--
Glenn Maynard
thing
--
Glenn Maynard
, 1.2.11 is not
functionally the same as 1.2.10, so a patch should be avoided...
Hints?
Ask him to retroactively license the old version under the GPL as well,
and you only need to update the copyright file.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
--
Glenn Maynard
to this
is (wrt the license), it is *not* to try very hard to define
interactive; it will fail and probably make a big mess of odd
interpretations in the process.
--
Glenn Maynard
(and it would be rude to add it against his wishes), but such a
notice can be made without touching the license.
--
Glenn Maynard
the case, we'd be forced to put GPL blurbs in anything that
made use of any GPL libraries at all, eg. Readline.
--
Glenn Maynard
in question isn't. This discussion
has been more useful to me than PHPNuke is ever likely to be. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
.)
(Er. Read application here as interactive application.)
--
Glenn Maynard
by the FSF off of the top of my head.)
--
Glenn Maynard
) into one which
has such a clean default interface. (The default interface is important
to me because that's what most users see--most people don't spend their
time figuring out how to disable GPL blurbs, and I want programs to
present the best interface by default.)
--
Glenn Maynard
DFSG-unfree (and we might hear rumblings from the
hopefully small DFSG#10-as-grandfather-clause crowd) ...
--
Glenn Maynard
name in its advertising. Since I don't hold sole the
copyright of the program I contributed to, I can't simply waive this ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
to this (admittedly odd form of) gdb when
it started a new session?
Less contrived analogues are welcome.
--
Glenn Maynard
an announcement. It clearly means
that you must tell the user running the interactive program; I think any
interpreting of that to mean printing to a place the user is never
likely to see it (syslog, or /dev/null) is a stretch and certainly not
what was intended.
--
Glenn Maynard
of the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
the
message it replies to. (There may have been SMTP queuing lag, of
course; I've had some of my own mails to Debian lists take a few hours
to get back to me over the last week or so.)
(The rest of this message doesn't warrant a response.)
--
Glenn Maynard
everything.
--
Glenn Maynard
, that if a
web session is interactive with respect to the tools generating them, then
manual shell scripting is, too.
--
Glenn Maynard
through
layers. I don't think this line of reasoning is useful.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
Which part of the DFSG? This seems deliberately constructed with passing the
DFSG (or the OSD) in mind.
--
Glenn Maynard
than one thing by itself ...
--
Glenn Maynard
the same page)
But can Debian distribute the patch itself? (After reading the random
attacks on the above link, I don't care to read anything else written by
that person at the moment.)
--
Glenn Maynard
conflicts down the road, and the
unnecessary implication that 6.8 should be updated with every
release of Perl.
--
Glenn Maynard
that you can at still use
the program under the terms of the GPL, version 2.
(I suspect the reason for this clause is the same as the one that
permits LGPL code to be shifted to GPL: to ensure that currently GPL'd
code will be upwards license-compatible with future versions of the
GPL.)
--
Glenn
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:03:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I disagree with the suggestion that the author could be made to
realize this merly by mailing him the text of the GPL with a few
passages underlined but no further explanation.
No argument there.
--
Glenn Maynard
located license exception), that
makes it undistributable, and I'd expect that the Debian package would
have to either be removed or forked at the latest pure GPL release.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
^^
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
--
Glenn Maynard
favor this interpretation,
I'm not equipped to defend it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
:)
On a different note, ProFTPD is GPL; is there anything that relieves the
LDAP module/code of the requirement of being GPL-compatible?
--
Glenn Maynard
) way to minimize patent liability short of hiring a lawyer is to
avoid knowing anything about potentially relevant patents entirely.
--
Glenn Maynard
reading patents.
(Someone else can go shoveling through caselaw. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
to use it as a lever
for your argument?
It's not something to engender confidence.
(And trying to compare behavior wrt. list policy that most people don't
even know about vs. the DFSG, a constitutional document of guidelines, is
meaningless, and you know it. Please stop.)
--
Glenn Maynard
reading patents.
Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
of having patents in the first place?
Preaching to the choir on this one, I think. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
was written by someone
who knows a lot more about patent law than I do. I believe your
interpretation matches the general Debian position on patents.
(I do agree that the patent system is a bad joke, but it's a joke at our
expense ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
of these threads to find an archive link?)
I do think that, for specific interpretations of existing DFSG clauses,
having them in a secondary document is better than amending the
(currently short and to-the-point) DFSG.
--
Glenn Maynard
reiterate
your assertion that the DFSG is to-the-point? It seems more
accurate to say that the DFSG is besides the point.
The DFSG is to-the-point. It isn't heavily laden with the fine details
of application; rather, it expresses Debian's principles of software
freedom concisely.
--
Glenn Maynard
; this was never in
question. He's questioning whether the DFSG, as written, allows it.
It seems to be a question based on the false idea that the DFSG is
intended to be taken literally and without interpretation, though. The
DFSG is fairly useless without being augmented by human judgement.
--
Glenn
itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
--
Glenn Maynard
will be included in Debian. For example, a game with half a gigabyte
of data, all of which is DFSG-free, would most likely not be included in
Debian; and software which has no interested Debian developer is unlikely
to get into the archive. DFSG-freeness is necessary, but not always
sufficient.
--
Glenn
*
--
Glenn Maynard
be superfluous.
[1] assuming they can have any meaning at all
--
Glenn Maynard
this into an
optional request, but that's a detail.)
--
Glenn Maynard
; it exists to make switching from OpenSSL
easier, not to make it possible.
But it doesn't seem to be related to which license it should use. If
it's useful for GPL apps, it'd be just as useful for (as Steve mentioned)
LGPL libraries.
--
Glenn Maynard
/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00186.html
It seems to disallow private modifications (6c), which, as I understand it, is
a DFSG requirement.
--
Glenn Maynard
is the
former legitimate and the latter not? (Or am I more confused than I
think?)
(I don't know if this extends to EULAs, though. They're on shaky ground
to begin with.)
--
Glenn Maynard
not sure. Either way, it has the time limit problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
on. (Most of these are you must send
changes upstream, and not you must make them available on request, but
I don't think there's any real difference.)
--
Glenn Maynard
limit; see the first paragraph:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00010.html
--
Glenn Maynard
forbids even patches.
--
Glenn Maynard
opinions in Debian
(even if I happen to agree with them). Whether they're technical or not
doesn't matter to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
the GPL. No real harm in that, I think, but it's unnecessary.)
--
Glenn Maynard
of their licenses, even if
they're strange.
However, it seems that x, y, and/or z should close the loophole. I
wonder if someone would try to interpret that as saying you must do
all of them or exactly one. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
that part? It sounds like they want it to be unredistributable,
which is clearly both DFSG-unfree and contradicting the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
, if there is a finding of willful infringement, meaning that the
infringer had knowledge of the patent before engaging in the actions
which constitute infringement.
Something to think about, at least.
--
Glenn Maynard
hinting; it's disabled
in the source, with documentation that says enable this only if you have a
license to use it.
However, that might be at the permission of Apple. I don't know.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:03:44AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Fortunately this particular problem will go away next summer :)
(LZW patent expiration)
I'm certainly glad Disney doesn't have as heavy a stake in patents as it
does in copyrights ...
--
Glenn Maynard
it
wasn't required at the time. (It may not be now, either.)
--
Glenn Maynard
of his knowledge
is wrong, he might want to change this anyway.
And if it *is* sufficient to avoid liability (eg. it's noncommittal), I'd
imagine it wouldn't be much of a Testimony.
(At least that's what the text Brian quoted said.)
--
Glenn Maynard
for this) intend this as
a testimony?
--
Glenn Maynard
the same at least
for non-commercial purposes paragraph (line ~162). Maybe someone should
ask the wenglish maintainer or upstream about this. (Too late at night
for me.)
--
Glenn Maynard
.
If you want I
can add a note that all word lists used are FSF Free to the copyright
notice.
If a license clarification is needed, I don't believe this will help.
--
Glenn Maynard
find anything about this in the GPL FAQ.
--
Glenn Maynard
, but it
seems reasonable enough here.)
But I havn't followed a full discussion on this, so I don't know for sure.
--
Glenn Maynard
, and a cumbersome one.
I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability?
--
Glenn Maynard
not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go
in main.
What part of this is not DFSG-free?
--
Glenn Maynard
as a trademark, I strongly doubt that
there ever was one.
For the purposes of this discussion, does it matter?
--
Glenn Maynard
other use of the material
that constitutes the Autoconf program.
--
Glenn Maynard
amending selected from those forms which are available
to you. The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
--
Glenn Maynard
do the same if I lost it, and maybe even if I was under
NDA. (It's not available! It's secret!) The GPL is designed to prevent
you from distributing binaries at all if you can't also distribute source.
--
Glenn Maynard
question was whether it can be distributed at all
(in non-free).
Whether it can or not, I would prefer it not be; I share Jeff's view
that behavior such as this is deceptive.
--
Glenn Maynard
wins.
I've seen plenty of statements to the contrary on debian-legal; that may
be a better place for this.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
He wants TeX to be his monument -- these are his exact
words.
He speaks in the third person? :)
--
Glenn Maynard
not a completely new system.
--
Glenn Maynard
. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/.
--
Glenn Maynard
. Please follow suit.
--
Glenn Maynard
in the default
package, but I don't think it would be of very limited use. I
certainly don't think the act of calling the program deb-TeX makes
it any less useful to anyone; that's purely cosmetic.
--
Glenn Maynard
one: generally speaking, filename restrictions are much more of a burden
than restrictions on the actual name of a work, because filenames are
functional and the actual name of a work is not.
--
Glenn Maynard
DFSG. (The
question here was whether this makes it GPL-incompatible.)
This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works
into the Public Domain.
I questioned this, but there was no further discussion. (I'll CC you
this reply separately.)
--
Glenn Maynard
guidelines.
--
Glenn Maynard
restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available
option. So, I'm a bit confused.
--
Glenn Maynard
that if
this didn't satisfy 3a, it means they expect you to make the changes
publically available if you distribute binaries at all; this would
violate the desert-island scenario, which might make it non-free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
of reasonable copying fee, and why
that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree.
However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility?
--
Glenn Maynard
to be
individual components, not Latex. (Presumably, even if they had the
resources to trademark individual components, they couldn't trademark
article.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the actual feature changes in the code.
If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with taking the statement literally, to reduce the scope of
a disliked clause, however.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to distribute it at all.
Don't give up so easily, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
901 - 1000 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
