On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:11:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's only the case if you consider the right to take the work
proprietary useful, and helpful to Free Software.
Or helpful to users.
Users who want to write
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:29:36PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
If YES, how do
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:30:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you
don't actually distribute GNU
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing I and Sven are talking about. There
is an implicit assumption here that an argument crafted over more than a
day or two must obviously be inferior to one that is spammed out from
the tip of
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
then claim consensus
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven's messages are constantly and deliberately laced with derision and
insults--in almost *every*
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the
rest can have any free licence,
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
The MySQL folks have a *new* statement, that should satisfy the DFSG, and
should be released w/ the next version of mysql. In the meantime, you can
basically ignore their FOSS exception, because it's absolutely useless for
us.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
since a given software can either be a modification of the original software
(which can replace it) or link with the original or modified software (and
thus use it).
One last attempt:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
| a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
| in the
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
confidential, in that we
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
DDs. If
Matthew Palmer writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am against it in principle. Having them subscribe to the debian-*-changes
mailing list is an active effort of their part, while we willingly push data
to them.
So you're now not OK with the QPL's
Francesco Paolo Lovergine frankie at debian.org writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
The MySQL folks have a *new* statement, that should satisfy the DFSG, and
should be released w/ the next version of mysql.
[...]
Pointers?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:41:02AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
| a.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you
don't actually
Walter Landry wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
Perhaps it could just be left out?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
based on pure speculation.
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Josh Triplett writes:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm
definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails.
Thank you
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is,
Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the Trolltech
annotation, altough it has not yet been endorsed officially by
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a licence says each time you use the software you have to write a
postcard to a sick
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
GPLv2:
* dpatch
* debhelper
Good to be cautious, but the purpose of these programs is to do things to
help create debian packages. As such, the resultant packages have no
dependence on these programs, to them, the
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:00:06PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
Somebody pointed me that maybe I should remove all OpenSSL related
code from the orig tarball. So, do you think this must be done ?
I'm not sure if that's ever been done for other
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
Perhaps it could just be left out?
Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did they
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:03:57PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current
interpretation of 17 USC
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:06:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I can discern the public domain version of the work from your
copyrighted version, then your version is not copyrighted at all.
Gar. Nasty typo.
s/can/cannot/
--
G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
without moving, apart from relying
Sven Luther writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
Perhaps it could just be left out?
Given that lawyer wrote this
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:34:37AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is,
Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people
not
having the time or money to play legal
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a licence says each
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced arguments
in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
arguments i held there where responded.
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Privacy problem ? Could you clearly define that. If the author is able to make
a request to you, your privacy is already lost anyway. This is if i understand
this argument right.
As I explained earlier, it might be public knowledge
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
without moving, apart
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dom Lachowicz
Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com
Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
[...]
For the record, I've recently acquired
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:16:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:37:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be distributed
under the same terms as the license of the original software seems to be
an important component of Freedom. I really do think, on consideration,
that
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced
arguments
in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
arguments i held there where responded.
I
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:40:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dom Lachowicz
Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com
Subject: Re: Abiword being
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
Perhaps it could just be left out?
Given that
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
sigh You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in
making that decision. All
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
That's debatable. If
Hello debian-legal,
I'm thinking about packaging SRP for debian.
Question 1: I'm not sure if there are any problem on packaging it. What
do you think about?
Question 2: If a program that use it shows the license only with a
option for the executable like program_name --version, it breaks the
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:08:02PM +0200, MiguelGea wrote:
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
* a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
* Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
* without limitation the
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say that in order
Hi,
I'd like to package some software (simage, from
http://www.coin3d.org/download/source-code/) which contains the source
code for mpeg2enc. Simage per se is in the public domain, but
mpeg2enc is rather more encumbered (see below).
As I read it, the patent claims disallow this from Debian. Is
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:
Question 1: I'm not sure if there are any problem on packaging
it. What do you think about?
See below.
Question 2: If a program that use it shows the license only with a
option for the executable like program_name --version, it breaks the
copyright?
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
*sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
without fee, would you consider the GPL to be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
The license must allow modifications and derived works.
=2E..hmm?
It did in the first draft. The language that
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
sigh You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the
disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that
needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
license doesn't need to say
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 05:00:10PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As I read it, the patent claims disallow this from Debian. Is that
true?
Yes. MPEG-2 video encoding has a particularly litigious and nasty
group holding the various patents on it. They're about the same as the
MPEG-[12] audio
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:17:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I have recently come to believe that the GPL's requirement for source
distribution is fundamentally different, and is in fact not truly a
compelled distribution in the fashion of the QPL. Please rip my thought
process to shreds
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
Readline, that program is a derivative
64 matches
Mail list logo
