looked at the
clauses the original license review request mentioned), but that clause
clearly makes the license non-free.
- Josh Triplett
.
- Josh Triplett
, since it grants more rights, not less.
Given that our standard position on patents is to ignore them unless a
particular patent holder is threatening us with lawsuits, I see no
reason why we shouldn't apply the same policy here.
- Josh Triplett
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents applicable to some other
software. [...]
[...] This has the effect of a patent
cross
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from all
of the software's contributors
used for software in Debian.
- Josh Triplett
Back-Cover Text is:
You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software.
Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU
development.
- Josh Triplett
-- no license violation
End of story.
- Josh Triplett
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 12/05/2004 16:12 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Humberto Massa wrote:
5. I will diff the sources from the resulting program with the
original sources
This diff is a derived work of your program and the original sources.
-- no license violation.
6. I will write a script
as
opposed to other contributors, and not that you must say exactly who you
are.
I feel very strongly that this is a Free Software license, by both the
spirit and the letter of the DFSG.
- Josh Triplett
it finds
acceptable. Rather than go down that path, we reject all such conditions.
- Josh Triplett
.
FYI, we've had a discussion of these before; I forget exactly what term
we used to call them, but it's in the list archives...
I think it was snippets.
- Josh Triplett
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
both the freeness and inaccuracy problems. Obviously, if the license is
not free, it can require you to jump through as many hoops as it wants
in order to get something you can distribute.
It can, though we
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:26:17AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
I think I understand what you mean, but also don't see that this is a
DFSG issue. There's some basis for this in the social contract, but
probably not as a hard and fast rule.
The DFSG
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:50:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The DFSG requires that it be possible to make and distribute _all_
derived works based on the original, as long as such works can be
distributed under the terms of the original license (ignoring the patch
clause
, which would not be DFSG-free.
- Josh Triplett
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you
.
But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents, and
that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
the work is DFSG-non-free.
- Josh Triplett
and the date of any change.
As long as opinions are not misrepresented, people have the ability to
read different documents with different opinions and make a rational
choice as to what they believe, without being misled by twisted words.
- Josh Triplett
of quoting and comment. The full text follows.
- Josh Triplett
xzx license:
Permission to use, distribute, and sell this software and its documentation
for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the above
copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice
or any other copyleft license is likely to be much
longer than most posts to the forum, or even many entire threads.
- Josh Triplett
.
- Josh Triplett
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* 4. Products derived from this software may not be called VOCAL, nor
*may VOCAL appear in their name, without prior written
*permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
This license appears
systems.
- Josh Triplett
Yggdrasil copyrights
on GPL-licensed kernel contributions (just as I believe they
infringe many other authors' GPL-licensed contributions).
- Josh Triplett
-lawyer. However, neither the original license nor the
interpretation is a Free Software license.
- Josh Triplett
in the category of all the other
software in Debian that is probably covered by many different patents
(progress bar, etc): leave it unless someone actually starts enforcing
the patent, and decide what to do then, and in the meantime don't go
looking for patents that affect the software.
- Josh Triplett
think most of them are summarised [1]here.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
And in Nathanael Nerode's excellent Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL
paper, at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html .
- Josh Triplett
to agree on an exception clause, or
simply not use the library. Considering the sheer volume of GPLed
software, using a non-GPL-compatible license on a library seems likely
to discourage widespread usage.
- Josh Triplett
in the GPL, due to the last clause:
unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
- Josh Triplett
be in a better position to ask
than a Debian Developer). In the meantime, the firmware should be
removed. If the rest of the QLogic driver is not usable without this
firmware, it should be removed as well.
- Josh Triplett
.
Overall, this license appears to be DFSG-free but GPL-incompatible.
- Josh Triplett
to contradict the license below. But I'll assume it doesn't
for now...
I think this refers to the license itself, not the software covered by
it, much like the GPL's Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute
verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed..
- Josh Triplett
say that the location must still work, so providing the
location where you obtained the document (or if you obtained a modified
version, the location given by that distributor) should be sufficient.
A requirement to continually check that the location worked would
clearly be non-free.
- Josh
from the originals _by a program_ would be non-free,
and would not be allowed by trademark law anyway. The desired
restriction here, which is perfectly free, is that a _person_ can
distinguish between the original and the modified version, because of
the lack of endorsement.
- Josh Triplett
to be DFSG-free.
- Josh Triplett
/compress.c [2]
xc/util/compress/usermem.sh [2]
The above license does not appear to be DFSG-free at all. It allows
redistribution and use, but not modification or distribution of modified
versions.
- Josh Triplett
401 - 438 of 438 matches
Mail list logo
