debian-legal has reviewed this topic before. You can read it in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html
Some of the links there have rotted, but it seemed clearly not
Crown copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible
Wikipedia asserts that the KJV is
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is
an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our
philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with
our philosophy, IMHO.
We do not have
[I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license
means All Rights Reserved, with current laws!) papers at a DebConf
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
If there is still an issue, I suppose we could start a non-GB section :-)
If we do, then maybe it should contain a copy of peter pan, which
has a clause in the law such that it never expires[1].
cheers
stuart
[1] http://www.gosh.org/about_us/peterpan/copyright.html
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:24:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
debian-legal has reviewed this topic before. You can read it in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html Some of
the links there have rotted, but it seemed clearly not Crown
copyright.
I don't see a conclusive answer
hi all,
i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm :
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html
and i need some advices about licence issue :
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php
the first lines :
The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public
License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional
Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:48:29PM +0100, Fathi Boudra wrote:
hi all,
i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm :
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html
and i need some advices about licence issue :
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public
License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the
Additional
Terms in Exhibit B. The
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument?
It's not an argument--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non-
free based on whether or not
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop this The
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't
As the KJV was crown copyrighted in the 1600s, section 171 states that
unless crown privilege is explicitly repealed, the act does not affect
it.
According to Wikipedia the printing of the KJV is heavily controlled
by several institutions, eg Cambridge uni and oxford.
Maybe they could be
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:01:27PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with
the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The
presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive
suggests (but does
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
That does mean I agree that
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:22 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
[I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]
Thanks.
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf
is an event through which we get public attention and can thus
spread our philosophy. The message really works better if
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:12:31 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
My impression in this case is: the MPL is non-free,
I agree.
[...]
It seems to take
a lot of squeaky-wheeling to get a non-free license treated as such
these days, and that takes a lot of energy.
Indeed. :-(
In any event, I
(FWIW, this is probably more of a d-project thing; d-legal is more about
figuring out whether licenses are free and safe.)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:24:58AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.
Why not (and says who)? If they're worth anything at all,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we pick
our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about starving children,
but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots
of good
22 matches
Mail list logo
