quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:52:53PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
modification restriction is an interesting one. I
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:52:53PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:14:55 +0100, Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Under this logic, copyleft is also a use restriction. It bars
proprietary use of free software.
Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
of the exclusion of other uses than the
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
of the exclusion of other uses than the mentioned. Nothing
distinguishes the proprietary usage from the non-prorietary usage
when looking at the actyual useage only.
If
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source
(at up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could
easily be stuck in the fine print
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:10:14PM -0500
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
maybe we can make it
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:10:14PM -0500
If you have one GPL-ish license designed for arcades, and another for toll
booths, and another for web services, then you can't use code written for
toll
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
bring copyright into the interactions
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
Others have already made the point that the AGPL is not a narrowly
defined restriction -- that it's actually quite significant and
ill-defined under certain circumstances.
Narrowly
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500
The bigger problem is that by arguing for this type of new law, we are
arguing for an expansion of existing
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:49:12AM -0500
How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web
application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two?
I think that's an unnatural distinction. Both web users and arcade
players are equally
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does
that. Maybe we have a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
problems is arcade machines. It's clearly public performance, and players
in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
We include sources to GPL stuff on the
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at
up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily
be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
I've generally been of the
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
[...] users.
No. They provide a narrowly
Glenn Maynard wrote:
But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases.
(Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy
interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:07:08AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
of satisfying this for the voicemail, toll booth, etc. cases.
(Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while
other developers were not looking these people found a consensus to
change what until then was the widely accepted meaning
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:41:55AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Marco d'Itri date=Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:40PM +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:51:45AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
minority on -legal
* Mark Rafn:
Is a work free if some modifications are permitted, but would make
the resulting work non-free?
Consider a program which is licensed under the plain GPL. You
incorporate parts of OpenSSL into the program, under the standard
OpenSSL licenses. The licenses are not compatible,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Rafn:
Is a work free if some modifications are permitted, but would make
the resulting work non-free?
Consider a program which is licensed under the plain GPL. You
incorporate parts of OpenSSL into the program,
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
You then have problems with any derivative works must be made available
under the terms of this license clause, which is essential to copyleft.
Not much more than today. GPLv2 is not compatible with AGPL, nor with
the proposed GPLv3.
The goal of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop repeating the fringe lie. -legal is open to all. It's just
I never affirmed that it's not.
Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while
other developers were not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free
On 10/02/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop repeating the fringe lie. -legal is open to all. It's just
I never affirmed that it's not.
Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
were extremists or outright loons like you,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source
Mark Rafn wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source Distribution) as though you had
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:31:16AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Although the interface is such that bit feels a little awkward, this
is a step forward. If I use a source file from eg. Apache in a tiny
embedded device, allow me to supply the source (that won't even fit
on the device, never
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and for
GPLv2(2)(c) in particular.
Bad example; if that clause were in any other license, it probably would
have been declared non-free a long time ago.
Yes, and this shows quite clearly how a few people on debian-legal@ are
trying to change the meaning of the DFSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue, as I understand it, comes down to one of two things. As
Steve phrased it, it would probably fail the Chinese dissident test
which, while not part of the DFSG, is seen as a useful tool by many
people on this list.
And while some misguided people think it's
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
minority on -legal holding sway. That doesn't mean Debian can't reconsider
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
quote who=3D\Glenn Maynard\ date=3D\Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM
-0500\
The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A
non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to
use it.
I never suggested that this is
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
Unfortunately the clause is not void.
(1) This is a copyleft, so all
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think we need to turn this into a semantic argument about the
term user. The authors of the free software definition and both
versions of the GPL think that users are people who, well, *use*
software. Use in this case is defined according to
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500
The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like public
performance. I.e., if the work is publicly performed, source
distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
probably have to be defined
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I do not find it different in practice from a similar clause in the
GPLv2:
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There is the issue of defining *users*. My definition of the user of a
software would be the person that is in control of hardware on which
the software run. The Affero clause actually reduce their ability to
modify their software.
I don't think we
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:34:27AM -0800
Mark Rafn wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500
The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like public
performance. I.e., if the work is publicly performed, source
distribution requirements would apply. Public
Mark Rafn wrote:
My first suggestion would be to try to word a license clause you believe
meets the requirements, THEN figure out how to word GPLv3 to be
compatible with it. The extra layer of indirection is confusing.
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:34:27AM -0800
The
It occurs to me that one of the biggest mistakes with the GFDL is the
confusion caused by clauses that do not apply in many cases. Licenses
that have options and conditionals are EXTREMELY confusing, and lead to
hassle on the part of distributors (and Debian specifically) having to
evaluate
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I create a derivative work of web.py (webplus.py) which *does*
include the facility mentioned in the AGPL, no subsequent derivative
works of webplus.py can ever remove it. This regardless of *my*
desires as the author of the source transmisison
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like public
performance. I.e., if the work is publicly performed, source
distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
probably have to be defined in a
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 05:02:22PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
problems is arcade machines. It's clearly public performance, and players
in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
We
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
One way would be to supply a compactflash card slot that will burn the
sources to a 1GB compactflash card. That seems a lot less outrageous
today than it did three years ago, to my mind.
Actually, our arcade machines are somewhat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
minority on -legal holding sway. That doesn't mean Debian can't reconsider
debian-legal in 2003 *was* a fringe minority in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
Which part of the DFSG, exactly?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
clause. Several people, at least, have spoken up in favor of this sort
of clause being both in the spirit of the GPL and the DFSG.
I
quote who=Marco d'Itri date=Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:40PM +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
Which part of the DFSG, exactly?
The issue, as I
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
Debian.
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third
parties that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with
the DFSG.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Benj. Mako Hill
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:32:18PM -0800
Several people, at least, have spoken up in favor of this sort
of clause being both in the spirit of the GPL and the DFSG.
Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the
input of an ftpmaster who
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
This is an interesting question. Is a
Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication.
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:02:20PM -0800
There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL:
1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all. This is
certainly an open issue. I
quote who=Glenn Maynard date=Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0500
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
clause.
The GPLv3
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
The second argument is it fails the much more generic DFSG3 must
allow modification argument. Barring modification of the license and
copyright statement seems completely uncontroversial for obvious
reasons. Similarly, there is consensus that barring modification of
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication.
Thank you. :)
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:02:20PM -0800
There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL:
1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired
clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of
software should be able to modify their software.
There is the issue of defining *users*. My
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source Distribution) as though you
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
(Non-Source Distribution) as though you had distributed the work
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:55:41PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Should a smaller list than d-l be used for brainstorming this? I'm happy
to join (or not, at your request, depending on whether my critiques are
helpful or harmful), but I hesitate to spam d-l too much with it while
working out the
(Kai Hendry)
I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
Debian.
(Steve Langasek)
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third
parties that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with
the DFSG.
(Benj. Mako Hill)
I don't
Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
Unfortunately the clause is not void.
(1) This is a copyleft, so all derivative works must use
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
As noted by Mark Rafn, a derivative work which added the source transmission
quote who=Bill Allombert date=Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:15:49PM -0600
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired
clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of
software should be
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
Affero General Public License (AGPL).
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
Debian.
No, it is not.
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 06:20:25PM -0800
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
Affero General Public License (AGPL).
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I thought I should
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
clause.
The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A non-
free
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 06:20:25PM -0800
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
Affero General Public License (AGPL).
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I
* Steve Langasek:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
Affero General Public License (AGPL).
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
70 matches
Mail list logo
