who
won't like it if you promote freedom wasn't one of them.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
perfectly valid for the copyright holder(s) of cdrtools to grant an
exception to the GPL, exempting the build scripts from the GPL source
requirements. That doesn't address the fact that some (myself included)
think the CDDL is non-free on its own, though.
--
Steve Langasek
of the license. The law
already has its own penalties for non-compliance; users shouldn't have to
worry about copyright holders of the software they're using adding to those.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
. Why are you opening bugs?
Agreed. I don't see anything here that warrants a serious bug.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
be binding or non-binding depending on interpretation,
and is not a good word to use without defining the scope. That is
where the non-clarity lies.
I think the word request is pretty unambiguous. Anyway, ambiguities
regarding the meaning of a license aren't RC bugs.
--
Steve Langasek
to use, copy, create derivative works, and
redistribute. The only stipulations are that the original author be
credited, and derivative works be labeled; and there's a warranty
disclaimer. I think this is clearly DFSG-compliant.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:27:09AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
misleading author or version information. Royalty free
.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
You also ask:
If it is possible then will you give me
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND
is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team.
Agreed; this license is still
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent discussions:
| 3. The name PHP must not be used to endorse
at least a hundred times.
What purpose do you feel calling a person blind or an idiot serves?
I don't think you are contributing anything to this discussion.
He's not. Would you please killfile him so that we can get on with life? :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
random phpFOO, but of course still ok for php
itself.
Why would it not be ok for PEAR? The PHP Group is upstream for PEAR.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
with it a number of unacceptable side
effects. I won't say it's impossible, I just don't see (at this point) how
it could be done.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
* various permissions
that are required for Debian main, I don't know how much luck you'll have in
getting them to again agree to a more permissive license. :)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
.
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL
and acknowledging that it should be worded more clearly. This is
*not* a statement on behalf of debian-legal that it's ok for licenses to
prohibit export to Cuba.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:46:21 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I'm still not happy about the don't use the PHP name clause,
but we seem to be ignoring that clause everywhere else at the moment.
So for packages that have
a
complete OS for download, which is just not a reasonable burden for webapp
developers to bear.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
*if* the packages include the new license text in
debian/copyright; otherwise downgrade the bug to a please update the
license text bug. Do you have a list of the affected packages?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
, or even better
for every software it's applied to).
Persuade them to fix *what*? The message you just quoted says he believes
the license has already been fixed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
be a bug in the legal system, not a bug in the
license. That's a crucial difference. There is nothing *in the GPL* that
gives the copyright holder unfair leverage to sue a bunch of people at low
per-unit cost to them.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
would have no problem with it; but that's definitely not what
we have here today.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http
way that the licensors found to screw users is one that the DFSG
doesn't address explicitly.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
that Debian
considers non-free, the good news is if it can also still be applied in ways
that *are* free.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
purposes. I'm glad they
made it optional in the way they did.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
countries. The US export restrictions are also
unrelated to copyright/patent.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
not accept the GPL, then you can give a
copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own
copies.
This discussion is quite irrelevant
Yes. Can y'all stop feeding the troll (kook) now, please?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
a fair amount of legal ambiguity as to
which bits the GPL is really claiming to be source. So, as usual, the
only sensible course of action is for Debian to sidestep this ambiguity.
At any rate, I do agree that your interpretation is the *correct* one for
the goals of the GPL.
--
Steve Langasek
?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
think?
I think a special-cased subscription is a very bad idea. Just let people
who are interested sign up to the mailing list; if you *really* think
there's a message on there that needs to be seen by all -legal subscribers,
bounce it or forward it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
the sources. There should be some clear indicator how people
can get the sources that correspond to the binaries being distributed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
/ZendLicense/.
This is a lie on the part of the licensor, but otherwise is completely
ignorable.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
*was* copied, which means copyright
infringement.
Trademark protection is a separate question entirely; I don't see that
there's much grounds for claiming trademark infringement here.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
is just that texture wrapped along a simple spiral.
Could you please tell us where in the Adobe Illustrator interface to find
the simple spiral template in question?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
in software, and the software is released under the GNU GPL? and the
GNU GPL does contain a clause for grant of patent license. So, what is
the problem?
That's not what /usr/share/doc/libselinux/copyright says on my system.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
, AFAICT.
All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to your
involvement in the project. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
to drop the clause.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:
From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in
their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.
As I understand it choice of venue clauses
OF USE,
DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTUOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
OF THIS SOFTWARE.
So this license prohibits private modifications.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
with the principles of Free Software as
expressed in the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
to works regardless of their country of origin.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:16:40PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket
what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is
being
for a number of other services (e.g., Kerberos).
Obviously we can't ship non-distributable code, but I'm not going to
remove ntp from testing just because it appears at first blush to be
inconsistently licensed. The maintainers should have a chance to clear
up this question first.
--
Steve
doctrine of
copyright misuse (licensor's home law).
WTF?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
.
Contrary to popular belief, this list does not exist to serve as a safe
haven for the legally delusional.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
. If it
doesn't, then you can always dual-license your work, but I guess that
still leaves open the possibility that your licensee will choose to take
you to court under the terms of the *original* license instead of your
modified license...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
;
distribution of allegedly infringing material over the Internet is *not*
sufficient to give the California courts jurisdiction over a case. But
accepting a choice of venue clause is.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
, it's also possible to sue for
legal expenses under various circumstances. That means that the net
(monetary) cost to a copyright holder for defending his copyright is
potentially zero.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
to this license spinning choice
assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell
games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination. I
don't see any particular reason that this clause should be a DFSG
problem.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
that require licensors to
give up rights unrelated to the work being distributed. But I also
don't think that bypassing the standard rules on jurisdiction is a
right in the first place, and I don't think licensors should be
claiming that privilege as part of Free Software licenses.
--
Steve Langasek
really file a removal request against Mozilla.
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
their copyright.
Sorry, this sentence registers as complete nonsense to me. If you're
going to claim that requiring certain things of *authors* before their
code can be included in Debian is a fee, how is this particular fee
different from the fee of publishing source code?
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:36:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually
answer is no.
Doesn't the message cited below indicate that ngspice is available under
4-clause BSD? Who ever said that the old BSD license wasn't allowed in
Debian?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
that's already in a stable release, wouldn't
it be a good idea to ask the author about relicensing first, and
possibly save the effort of repacking multiple tarballs?
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
is made available only for a newer major version of
the PEAR package which doesn't support the frozen version of PHP that
we've shipped...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL
people how to acquire a patent license, without actually
believing that one is needed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http
that posting your life story to debian-legal qualifies
as grounding in real-world law?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
*to* wrongly sue a copyright holder (waiver of liability). Is there some
*practical* reason I'm overlooking why we should be concerned about a waiver
of liability being a fee to those who receive Free Software?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
sandwiches must include source
code..., then the Social Contract would still require that all
provisions of the DFSG apply to all of main.
Yes, the DFSG must be applied to everything in main.
How do you get from there to the words 'ham sandwich' must be read as
'software', exactly?
--
Steve Langasek
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
Debian should follow for everything
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as software.
No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
the DFSG and this still says
as software. (And there are fewer instances
of the word software in the DFSG after the revision than there were
before, anyway...)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the
control of rat bastards of such caliber. I suppose it's possible, and I
suppose that if such a thing came to pass, we would need to take steps to
ensure they didn't redistribute Debian in the future.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:43:27AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
AFAIK there is no public evidence that Red Hat's (which is who I assume
you're principally referring to) decision not to ship mp3-playing software
is grounded
actually stuck; and
while I appreciate the principled stances various groups have taken in
publically rejecting mp3, I don't think it furthers Debian's goals for us to
do the same in the absence of some concrete support for the claim that mp3
*players* are patent-encumbered.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:45:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:54:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder library is
that this patent, like so many other software patents, does not appear to be
actively
not conflate the two issues. (Well, I suppose
that you can in your own work, but Debian will continue to consider them
separately.)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regime, over the word of someone who works for
an organization dedicated to fighting this threat to intellectual freedom?
Why would we do that?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:25:03PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 7/12/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If I were you I would be very, very cautious about inviting the SFLC
to hang its first test case
enforced. This is the standard Debian uses in deciding whether to
distribute the software; Red Hat evidently uses a different standard.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
with known patent licensing problems.
When it's known to be an actual licensing problem, I'm sure Debian will
address it.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
an element of
civil and polite discussion?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote:
Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit :
[...]
You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he
will fix the bug or not.
The wontfix tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however
-enforced patents as an
unacceptable risk. Is there some reason to think this patent is not really
being actively enforced, or is an invalid patent?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
applicable law.
http://www.linuxmark.org/forms/linux_licence_doc.html#Check1
smirk
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to
secure a license clarification.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
doesn't have a duty to account for every individual broken
jurisdiction on the planet.
The legal questions surrounding Waste are much more likely to center on
whether the people acting at Nullsoft actually had the legal authority to
offer people a license to the code at issue.
--
Steve Langasek
, if they think you knew it was going to Cuba. (At least, this is how I
understood the BXA regs to read last time I had a look at them.)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the US to Cuba, or to Cuban
nationals.
It is my understanding that this applies to Gentoo just as much as it
applies to Debian.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
upstream for making modifications
; but
decompiling a binary gives you none of the text of the original higher-level
source.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
main, or get the DPL to appoint a new RM.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a
large advantage while persecuting the Free Software community.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, because we cannot distribute
Apache under terms matching those of the GPL. Please ask your upstream for a
license exemption that allows Debian to distribute mod_aspseek in binary
form so that this package can be included in the sarge release.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
the program against
party C is by shooting him, obviously; but that's out of scope for copyright
licenses.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added
are acceptable.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
obviously will). This license would be fine in non-free.
Because the lib would need to stay in main instead of contrib, however, the
source package would still have to be split to allow this.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
but don't have time to clean the source
tree, let me know and I can take a look at doing this for you.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
restrictions like those in the
APSL are non-free. It's not like we have any shortage of software in main
that's made available to us under sane licenses.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:25:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:00:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
I can only find it currently in 2 packages in Debian--prozilla and elinks.
The others that used
.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
in Europe
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
ftpparse.c
, and Hummer.
I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to
dedicate yourself to this task ASAP.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
201 - 300 of 667 matches
Mail list logo
