for network distribution, or media costs
for physical distribution)?
- Josh Triplett
[Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
think the requirement for an
all-permissive license is obnoxious, but still Free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
- Josh Triplett
Trademarks are fundamentally different from
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Trademark license:
You may use this logo or a modified version of it to refer to Debian.
You may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to
anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand
-- and the DJB software isn't going to be
Free anyway.
gnuplot is also under a patch clause license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
be to dual-license with the GPL. A second, discouraged
recommendation will be to waive the two problematic clauses of the QPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
in Debian main. Free works must be
usable for any purpose. This license discriminates against all fields
of endeavor other than referring to Debian.
(Yes, I know that's the point of a trademarked logo. Perhaps there is
some better way to do this and remain Free.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
agree that the
QPL is full of asymmetry, but I don't think most of it is a DFSG
problem, apart from the send changes upstream clause and the choice
of venue clause.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
not distribute the software.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 03:55:57 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an
attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.
How so?
Summaries hereto seem to restate views without many
main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Copyleft is merely one facet of free software, but it's notable that it
/does/ restrict user's freedoms (the freedom to distribute without
source) in order to ensure that other users are free to receive source
from distributing the software
*unless they have a patent license*, which essentially allows them to
make the software proprietary.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, not specific to the software in
question. This does *not* mean that we should allow software licenses
that can be explicitly revoked for no reason, just because patents are
so fundamentaly wrong.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
claims cannot be prevented, but that does not
mean Debian should stop distributing all software.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
are irrelevant. The Dissident test triggers if,
when the dissident finally leaves the jurisdiction of the totalitarian
government, some copyright holder can say that the actions they took to
maintain their privacy violated the copyright license, by the laws of
non-totalitarian governments.
- Josh
) and the statements
you quoted.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Consider someone writing Free Software under a contract with a
particular business. (This is a common business model for Free
Software.) The contractor is then distributing the software to that
business (assuming that the contractor excluded work
users would allow
technical workarounds for copyleft, as long as a user can use software
without actually receiving it, such as interacting with it over a website.
At the end of the day, the point of Free Software is to give freedom to
the users of that of software.
- Josh Triplett
to do so; it could be applied to almost any requirement.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:32:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* It singles out a particular package, which I believe will raise _more_
accusations of vigilante license analysis, not less.
* Analyzing the license with a particular package in mind may cause a
summary
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The opinions of debian-legal consist of the opinions of all those
developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from the
opinions on debian-legal
Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The opinions of debian-legal consist of the opinions of all those
developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from
or not...
This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an
attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.
How so?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/*/copyright on my
system to check that statement turned up mdetect, which appears to be
mixing QPLed and GPLed code in the same program.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
a more carefully written requirement that source must be distributed
and freedoms given to the *users* of a piece of software still seems
reasonable to me.
I want to think it is reasonable as well, but I haven't yet been able
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 02:17:37 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't seem
like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common.
That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if necesary
with
such a decision is unlikely to happen. The MIT/X11-style licences are
fine for some tasks.
While I understand what you mean by this (and I would also disagree with
such a clause) the MIT/X11-style licenses _are_ GPL-compatible.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
other projects'
licenses), unless the entirety of the other project is considered to be
a patch on the part of the patch-clause-licensed work. This becomes
even more difficult when incorporating material from more than one such
work.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
, then the emulator should go to main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
make your own
MP3s.
Debian main does not contain any MP3 encoders. The licensing terms of
the patent on MP3 require a royalty payment on encoders (but not
decoders), so Free Software MP3 encoders are non-distributable in all
countries with software patents.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
for the Firebird database.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
:18 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
public to be provided to the original developer on request. This
requirement fails the Desert Island test and the Dissident test (see
sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Josh Triplett said on Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700,:
* The license contains a choice of venue clause, which states that
Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court..
^
quote
Choice of Law
This license
a debated topic.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
test as written would prohibit
---
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
by the Desert Island test is the ability
to make private modifications. This could be phrased in terms of custom
software used within a business, but it wouldn't be nearly as catchy or
succinct. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
reasonable application of a trademark to Free Software, and Debian
distributes of Abiword using the branding Abiword Personal.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, Abiword is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
modified versions of Abiword are either called Abiword Personal, or
that they don't have Abiword in the name. This is a perfectly
reasonable application
, converted
using pdftotext along with some manual reformatting.
- Josh Triplett
FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL
Notice
This Agreement is a free software license that is the result of
discussions between its authors in order to ensure compliance with the
two main principles guiding its
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free
software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
),
then I believe this fear is probably unfounded, as long as those
restrictions are enforced. (IANAL, TINLA.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
construction, the French version shall be deemed
authentic.
So someone versed in legalistic French needs to read the French version
of the license and check that clause 5.3.4 in that version clearly
allows conversion to the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. This really needs to be changed to
another license, though, since the Open Publication License is non-free.
(See http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-005-opl .)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions in the documentation and/or other
materials provided with the distribution.
You should also have a NO WARRANTY clause.
- Josh Triplett
Definition:
It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have
distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a
copy of it, you must send one.
Any software with such a requirement would be non-DFSG-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
this license because
of to an aversion to long licenses.
Overall, I would suggest using the MIT license if the author doesn't
want a copyleft, and the license above if the author just wants to make
the minimal changes needed to have a Free license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description
Joe Moore wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
[...]
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/A/AOL-.html
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
Sounds like a useful rule of thumb
Agreed.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
to be a dump of *your* cartridge either - you just
have to own one.
Really? I would be interested to know which console companies, since
most of them try to pretend that emulation is always illegal.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
approves of. See also
the Tentacles of Evil test in the DFSG FAQ.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:32:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* It discriminates against people who cannot (or simply do not want to)
identify themselves (unless they have some sort of method to send
anonymous email). See also the Dissident test in the DFSG FAQ.
I'd
on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.
Choice-of-venue. Not OK.
Agreed.
- Josh Triplett
/dfsg-faq.html .
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is the _only_
format available, even to the original developers, then it must be the
preferred form for modification.
- - Josh Triplett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA3HAQGJuZRtD+evsRAjr
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Every package must specify the dependency information about other
packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
Emulators do not work correctly without software to emulate.
If there is no software
under the GPL, so you should check with
the author to be sure, but they would probably be willing to GPL it,
since everything else on the site appears to be GPLed.
- Josh Triplett
to WineLib for the purposes of compiling and
running that program under GNU/Linux.
- Josh Triplett
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
data is required
-incompatible and/or
binary-only firmware violates their copyright.
- Josh Triplett
with that complaint); that suggests that a fair
number of kernel developers agree with Linus or at least accept his
opinion on it.
Or they were simply unaware of the presence of binary-only firmware in
what was supposedly an entirely Free, GPLed kernel.
- Josh Triplett
Michael Poole wrote:
Josh Triplett writes:
Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
are distributed on a volume of a storage or distribution medium.
Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system
works covered by
the GPL are required to be distributed under the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
[1] I'm intentionally using combined rather than any specific term.
are
copyright infringement.
- Josh Triplett
.
Those other parties are distributing non-free software (also known as
firmware), so their interests are not Debian's interests.
- Josh Triplett
), or reaffirm the current Social Contract with its recent
changes (Proposal F). The proposal is currently open for votes; see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/06/msg4.html .
- Josh Triplett
, or for
violating the GPL or any other license; at one point, many people
needed netscape, but that doesn't mean netscape should have been in
main. In any case, the tg3 driver works fine without the firmware on
most cards it supports; the firmware is only needed in a few cases.
- Josh Triplett
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright
holder and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible
license (so that every doubt would go away immediately).
This would
.
- Josh Triplett
. Without that source, the firmware would either be
non-distributable (if under a license like the GPL that requires source)
or non-free (if the license does not require source).
- Josh Triplett
.
- Josh Triplett
their works (or something)?
Since the copyright holder is the Regents of the University of
California, the advertising clause is superseded by
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change , so you
could just include a note in debian/copyright to that effect.
- Josh Triplett
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical
by distributing the software..
On the other hand, this _would_ interact strangely with the choice of
venue, since in the latter case the copyright violation would be subject
to the laws of the licensee's jurisdiction.
- Josh Triplett
and locales. There are many licenses
derived from the MPL with only the name changed, so it is difficult to
search for them.
- Josh Triplett
thing. I don't think this has anything to do with copyright
notices; the kind of notice they are talking about is an explicit
disclaimer of endorsement and of conformance to the standard.
- Josh Triplett
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Josh Triplett:
One other issue: does and the nroff source is included mean that if I
want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems
onerous for physical distribution
based on the m68k, such as UAE (found via a quick
Google search, which turned up many more results that looked promising).
- Josh Triplett
; is it the same
one you already tried?
- Josh Triplett
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from
http://www.gnu.org
distributing it.
Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant
win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a
derivative of neither.
So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
derivative of Windows?
Yes.
- Josh Triplett
their
licenses to reduce the number of different combinations.
I don't think OSI follows similar guidelines. Notably, Debian does not
require contributors to its process to use non-free software, defaults
I'm curious, what non-free software is required to contribute to OSI?
- Josh Triplett
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted
provides information about how to get your
mirror listed on the official site.
? Also, does it seem legally useful?
Depends, what are you trying to achieve?
- Josh Triplett
, this option would only let the package go into non-free.
- Josh Triplett
of the QPL
seems to have been uploaded to main even after that discussion concluded
that the license was non-free.)
- Josh Triplett
be available alongside the program
on the same site.
- Josh Triplett
that is the intent of the license.
- Josh Triplett
that is hostile
to us, but we should be careful and deliberate about such exceptions.
I agree entirely. I was not seriously suggesting that interpretation of
the license; I was simply curious if such an interpretation
(modification as a set of excerpts plus original material) was plausible.
- Josh
with some additional material? I'm inclined to think no, but
it might be arguable.
- Josh Triplett
from Sherman Networks' popular
client for that network, and the question of patent issues never came up.
- Josh Triplett
Humberto Massa wrote:
MatLab, itself, seems to be non-free. So, even if debian packages this,
it should go into contrib.
Unless it works with GNU Octave, in which case it could go to main.
- Josh Triplett
chose a copyleft license (albeit a
relatively weak copyleft), I don't think you should suggest that they
change to a non-copyleft license. If you are going to suggest another
license, you might suggest a dual-license with the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
restrictions above the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
301 - 400 of 438 matches
Mail list logo
