On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:15:38 +0200 Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:46:06 +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, this is my attempt to rephrase clause 5d in a form that is weak
enough to be less harmful than clause 2c of GPLv2:
begin
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:50:27 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2... :-(
* Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070404 01:09]:
Calling Affero code proprietary is a pretty big stretch. Yes, there's a
clause in there which is a restriction on modification - so it's not
entirely free. But you still have to release the source to
modifications, source follows the
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:30 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of
the license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning,
i.e.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:40:12 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of
a legal notice or author attribution permitting the attachment of
the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause. Can you give a
concrete
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think most courts do not rule on uncontested fact. This clause is
probably intended to
prevent EvilCorp(TM) from claiming that the work falls into that
class. The other party
is unlikely to contest that, claiming the work does fall
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license.
So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by
having the consumer
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:17:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
I cannot depict a specific scenario off the top of my head, but my
alarm bell rang as soon as I saw the word preservation coupled
with undefined (and hence vague) terms as reasonable legal notice
and
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of the
license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
permissions).
*When* I choose the GNU GPL, I want to prevent my code
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to previous
drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-(
It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to freeness.
Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2... :-(
[...]
I would like to see clause 5d dropped entirely.
I agree
The following is intended to be a compression of your comments down into the
most important points (generally, the areas you are concerned about),
to aid further discussion. As well as some responses to your comments. (I
had to manually fix the quoting, so apologies if I mess it up somewhere).
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
For the record: IANAL, IANADD.
My comments on the new draft follows.
I will send them to the FSF public consultation system RSN (since they
are accepting comments for only 60 days, starting on 28 March).
IANAL and IANADD either.
[...]
16 matches
Mail list logo
