On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:53:28AM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I think we should amend DFSG 1 so that it reads as Roland's (A) (or the
semantic equivalent).
So do I, but then we'll have to kick the Bitstream Vera fonts out of
main. I'm guessing that won't be a
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:47:28PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
In short, we accept you may not sell this program alone clauses, but
only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
Hi,
during the discussion about the legal status of LaTeX2HTML [1], some
people confirmed my interpretation of the DFSG.1. But after some weeks
of intense discussion with the upstream maintainer, he is still not yet
convinced about our argumentation (although possibly ready to change the
Scripsit Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a different way possible:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict
any party from selling or giving away the software
as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
In short, we accept you may not sell this program alone clauses, but
only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
ineffective in practice.
By the way, I think this phrasing in the DFSG is no accident. It's
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict
any party from selling or giving away the software
as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources.
+ (But may
Scripsit Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would really like to have a consensus about this issue until the sarge
release for being sure about this when checking licenses.
The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
I also don't think that your proposal (A) is an interpretation or
clarification. It is a *change*
Right, maybe ...
- the current language as a
component of an aggregate software distribution is hard (but
apparently possible) to
Scripsit Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
..., but the result of the small LaTeX2HTML discussion last month seems
to show a big misunderstanding because everybody involved claimed rather
(A)
No - they complained that the license discussed in
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031103 16:25]:
(A)
===
The license of a Debian component may not restrict
any party from selling or giving away the software
- as a component of an aggregate software distribution
- containing
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
I.e. since there's the right to sell the aggregation, there should
(DFSG wording in #8) be right to sell the program alone.
No, nothing of that kind is implied. If everybody has the right to
sell aggregations, then DFSG#8 is met.
That's
Scripsit Roland Stigge
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
second
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 22:24, Henning Makholm wrote:
DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
second sentence of #8 is that
Scripsit Roland Stigge
Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling of
the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no cost,
#8 requires the receiver to have the same rights as those
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have been following
debian-legal.
I think it's a bit too strong to say that it's completely unambiguous.
I think it's more than no one
On Nov 3, 2003, at 17:30, Roland Stigge wrote:
Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling
of
the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no
cost,
#8 requires the receiver to have
16 matches
Mail list logo
