Paul van der Vlis dijo [Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 10:16:57AM +0200]:
> >> Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove
> >> the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some "user limit exceeded"
> >> messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program
> >> with t
Op 05-04-15 om 09:57 schreef Ben Finney:
> Paul van der Vlis writes:
>
>> Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove
>> the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some "user limit exceeded"
>> messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program
>> with
Op 05-04-15 om 01:56 schreef Gunnar Wolf:
> Paul van der Vlis dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:12:25PM +0200]:
>>> No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove
>>> references to Red Hat.
>>
>> Debian has to change the source of Firefox and Thunderbird too.
>> Does that make it non
Paul van der Vlis writes:
> Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove
> the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some "user limit exceeded"
> messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program
> with this messages.
So, the limit doesn't exist, but
Op 05-04-15 om 01:55 schreef Gunnar Wolf:
> The debated situation seems similar to me: Debian should not knowingly
> ship a bug. If at all, I'd patch it away and add a disclaimer stating
> that the software has the five user limitation removed, but requesting
> a voluntary donation in case it is u
Paul van der Vlis dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:12:25PM +0200]:
> > No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove
> > references to Red Hat.
>
> Debian has to change the source of Firefox and Thunderbird too.
> Does that make it nonfree software? I don't think so.
Remember we
Alessandro Rubini dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:20:34AM +0200]:
> (...)
> The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free
> software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those
> who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in
> their spare tim
Paul van der Vlis writes:
> For me this is an "academic discussion" about free software.
Then it's off-topic here. Please don't use this forum for such academic
discussions without a concrete work to examine.
Paul van der Vlis writes:
> Op 31-03-15 om 23:36 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> > All o
Op 31-03-15 om 23:52 schreef Riley Baird:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200
> Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
>>
Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. The
Op 31-03-15 om 14:03 schreef Ian Jackson:
> Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer"):
>> But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
>> likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
>> packa
Op 31-03-15 om 22:48 schreef Don Armstrong:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>
>> Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when
>> it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that?
>
> cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehem
Op 31-03-15 om 23:36 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss
> this, please bring this to -project.
You have a point, but I am at the moment mainly interested in arguments,
not in really getting the software into main.
With regards,
Paul van
Op 01-04-15 om 08:20 schreef Alessandro Rubini:
(..)
> The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free
> software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those
> who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in
> their spare time after earning a
Op 31-03-15 om 23:52 schreef Riley Baird:
> The constitution refers to licenses, but it has come to be understood
> that the upstream interpretation of, *and intentions behind*, the
> license forms part of this definition.
>
> For example, PINE had a MIT-style license, but upstream interpreted
>
2015-04-01 8:20 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Rubini :
> The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug,
> easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to
> exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or
> later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed abo
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:20:34 +0200
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> > [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable
> > restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and
> > obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force
> > Debian to adopt a licensi
Alessandro Rubini writes:
> This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream
> author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support
> the project.
With the significant difference that (as it has been described to us)
the work embodies a concrete restriction on
> [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable
> restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and
> obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force
> Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values.
How heated.
This is exactly like
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200
Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
>
> >> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
> >> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
> >
> > Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you
All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss
this, please bring this to -project.
Thanks.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
>> Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
>>
>> This conversation
Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte:
> Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
>
> This conversation is going in circles.
I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail.
1:
>> I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his
>> program into this discussion. I
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird:
>> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too?
>> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html
>
> Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from
> distributing isos compiled from the source.
So far I know Centos
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when
> it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that?
cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently
against Debian distributing it, and also vehemen
Please re-read my last mail on this thread.
This conversation is going in circles.
Thanks,
Paul
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tag
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>>
>>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>>
>> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
>
Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer"):
> But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
> likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
> packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to
Hi,
Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :
>
>> They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
>> licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
>> it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
>> code.
>
> No,
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
> and then redistribute.
> >>>
> >>> He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit
> >>> the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly
> >>> opposed to the goals of t
Hi Ben,
Op 26-03-15 om 20:42 schreef Ben Finney:
> Paul van der Vlis writes:
>
>> Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney:
>>> Paul van der Vlis writes:
>>>
No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
and then redistribute.
>>>
>>> He can ask, and god luck to
* Riley Baird:
> The DD would not be allowed to package it with a 5 user limitation,
> because then the DD would be imposing a restriction on the software,
> not the upstream author.
This is not quite correct. The user limit would just be a bug,
subject to the usual bug fixing procedures in Debi
Paul van der Vlis writes:
> Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney:
> > Paul van der Vlis writes:
> >
> >> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
> >> and then redistribute.
> >
> > He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit
> > the
2015-03-26 10:57 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis :
> Op 25-03-15 om 21:00 schreef Riley Baird:
They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
it may mean that no one else can actually use a
Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney:
> Paul van der Vlis writes:
>
>> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
>> and then redistribute.
>
> He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit
> the distribution and concurrent execution of the
Op 25-03-15 om 21:00 schreef Riley Baird:
>>> They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
>>> licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
>>> it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
>>> code.
>>
>> No, it's plain
Paul van der Vlis writes:
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code
> and then redistribute.
He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit
the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly
opposed to the goals of the De
> > They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively
> > licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but
> > it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the
> > code.
>
> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>>
>>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>>
>> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
>
Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello Miriam,
>
> Op 24-03-15 om 21:05 schreef Miriam Ruiz:
>> 2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis :
>>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>>>
Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>>>
>>> What when the DD
Hello Miriam,
Op 24-03-15 om 21:05 schreef Miriam Ruiz:
> 2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis :
>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>>
>>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>>
>> What when the DD who packages it, would package it wit
[Right, so I'm with Don; concrete examples here help]
This is not the opinion of any organization I'm in, this is purely my
reading.
General notes I'm going to leave here because folks who think this way
can skip it and see my reading
- DFSG freenes is applied to *licenses*. Notice everything
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>
> > Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>
> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
> limitation?
If it was actually AGPLed in its e
2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis :
> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>
>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>
> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
> limitation?
If the 5 user limitation is a requir
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:04:36 +0100
Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
>
> > Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
>
> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
> limitation?
The DD would not be
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user
limitation?
With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.
--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte:
> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so),
> its not dfsg free.
Modefication and redistributing is allowed because it's pure AGPL v.3.
But the creator would not like it when the 5-user restriction would be
removed
Op 24-03-15 om 17:51 schreef Jeff Epler:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
>> but not as in beer?
>
> Debian contains software in "main" which is covered by the AGPLv3. In
> 20
On Mar 24, 2015 1:17 PM, "Jeff Epler" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
> > but not as in beer?
>
> Debian contains software in "main" which is covered by the AGPLv3
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
> but not as in beer?
Debian contains software in "main" which is covered by the AGPLv3. In
2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters
Hello,
Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL)
but not as in beer?
The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users.
It's a program for enterprises.
You can change the sources, but you will understand that the makers hope
to get some money for the further d
49 matches
Mail list logo
