Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The issue is what it costs you, not who benefits. The GPL requires
the exact same thing -- that you make any intellectual contribution
of your own available to others -- the only difference is that the
GPL requires you give it to various users, and
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
DFSG-free means that it can be included in Debian, maintained by our
maintainers and used by our users.
Now you're being silly. Surely
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 07:34:26PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Substantial modifications are permitted, and may be distributed, at
which point the modifier must either pay to ABC Software Inc the sum
of USD 1,000 for each occurrence of
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 07:02:18AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I would be interested in an answer to the question in my last message,
namely how to distinguish between this ABC-DFL and licenses that
require other sorts of consideration before modification.
The issue is what it costs you,
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 13:38, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
software.
My
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:03:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It probably leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone on this list,
but yes. You're coming closest to violating DFSG 3, if, for example, the
license required me to actively notify ABC Software, Inc. of the
changes.
Some of
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
V.2. Other Products.
Netscape may include Covered Code in products other than the
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Uh... does Covered Code include modifications that third parties
make? If so, then we have a problem.
1.3. Covered Code means the Original Code or Modifications or the
combination of the Original Code and Modifications,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A license that says modify and distribute all you want; keep my name; don't
add additional restrictions to the license implicitly requires that you allow
your modifications to be used proprietarily, since it prevents you from adding
the GPL's safeguards
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please
is DFSG free?
I'm not sure that's
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
V.2. Other Products.
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:38:14PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Substantial modifications are permitted, and may be distributed, at
which point the modifier must either pay to ABC Software Inc the sum
of USD 1,000 for each occurrence of distribution by the modifier, or
grant to ABC Software Inc a permanent,
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Uh... does Covered Code include modifications that third parties
make? If so, then we have a problem.
No moreso than we already have with the GPL; just like with the GPL, if
you
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:57:08PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term free software.
(Now there's a surprise.)
Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.
So let's try.
1. Software is executables,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:28:12PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GPL,
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:52:46AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Didn't the QPL used to have this exact feature?
It was considered free at the time, wasn't it?
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term free software.
(Now there's a surprise.)
Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.
So let's try.
1. Software is executables, source files, etc.
2. The copyright holder can
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
Spot on. Exactly the point.
Ok. It's
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GPL,
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's not the case.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
non-discrimination.
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not apply in this situation.
Jonathan Fine said:
The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
non-discrimination.
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not apply in this situation.
I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person,
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not apply in this situation.
I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
it does not discriminate to the
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person,
group, or field of endeavor, then it is free.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That isn't
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 05:08, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
That guideline is intended to disallow things like If you're French,
you may not use this package. The license must be
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that are
not granted to other licensees.
As I am new to this discussion, first here are some words
about myself and my understanding of the situation.
I'm a longstanding user of TeX, and author of TeX macros.
Some years ago I did a small amount of volunteer work
for the LaTeX-3 project. My current interests include
XML-front ends, and
Scripsit Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that are
not granted
39 matches
Mail list logo
