Agreed. The APSL1, the RPL and several other licenses are clearly in
violation of the DFSG (and you all know where the OSD comes from). It
just seems though that the so-called 'official' definition of 'open
source' (OSI) is quite well known, but irrelevant.
Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are
On 1/9/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g.
the OSL's assent provision).
Yeah, right. Assent is not needed in the GNU Republic where first sale is
nonexistent, IP is not property, and where distributing
On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license.
Who cares about your bet... but free as in what, BTW?
regards,
alexander.
Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
I think anyway...
Andrew
On 1/9/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If Rosen wrote a license then it's a good bet that it's not a free license.
Who cares about your
On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
regards,
alexander.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:39PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
Which is why OSI has
On 1/7/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no
competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are
quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows
this not to be the case.
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
And one more..
On 1/7/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton
Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act
to succeed.
Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a
court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the
copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html):
I think if you want to suggest to the FSF that the language
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
real-stuff-like-that.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
quote
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
millions of them.
And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
millions of them.
If they don't
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
would have to agree, possibly in writing.
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sarcasmThat would be *really* easy to do./sarcasm To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
(according to the FSF),
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109,
* Alexander Terekhov:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
(according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexander Terekhov:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
Netfilter case. Please quote some actual court rulings then I'll
consider believing you.
Can we get on to discussing the real GPLv3 issues now?
Andrew
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
Netfilter case.
Oh yeah, It's a Small Welte. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte
action) doesn't really upheld anything, to begin with.
Could you PLEASE take this off-topic trolling to some appropriate
forum, and leave debian-legal for discussions that directly affect
Debian?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:31:45 -0500 Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
Howdy legal mavens,
Hi! :)
Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch
conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January.
That's really good news, as I hope you'll be able to
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:53:23AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
real-stuff-like-that.
I suggest you dig a hole and die in it. Really.
If Rosen
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi public domain/copyright
quote who=Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader date=Thu, Jan 05, 2006
at 02:37:47PM -0500
Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch
conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January.
I'll be there as well and will be happy to represent and communicate
Debian's
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon
32 matches
Mail list logo
