On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:35 +0400, olive wrote:
Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to
include it. But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I
think people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they
do no like it. There is no
Hi Debian legal people,
I maintan a KDE application, so I have the pleasure of dealing with some
GFDL data. Fortunately, the upstream author decided to relicense his work
under a dual GFDL/BSDDL license, so it can be included in Debian. However,
he is not certain about the wording, so I come here
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
There is no rule which say that every bits of a file can be
modified; but there are law which says that you must be able to
use your freedom.
I'm not sure what else you can
[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
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:04:23AM -, Regis Boudin wrote:
I maintan a KDE application, so I have the pleasure of dealing with some
GFDL data. Fortunately, the upstream author decided to relicense his work
under a dual GFDL/BSDDL license, so it can be included in Debian. However,
he is not
Glenn Maynard said:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:04:23AM -, Regis Boudin wrote:
I maintan a KDE application, so I have the pleasure of dealing with some
GFDL data. Fortunately, the upstream author decided to relicense his
work
under a dual GFDL/BSDDL license, so it can be included in
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
Are you suggesting that such restrictions are acceptable under the
DFSG, or are you suggesting that such restrictions might be
beneficial and thus we should adapt the DFSG to permit them?
I firmly believe that the former is true. GPLv3 Affero-style clauses
provide a minor restriction on
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:24:04AM -, Regis Boudin wrote:
Oops, soory for that. He is relicensing under FreeBSD Documentaion
License. I heve no idea where the BSDDL abreviation comes from.
I'd still never heard of it; Google was able to find it, and I
recognize it as a license that came up
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 Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:46:58 -0200
José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,,
Hi!
I have a package (php-netcheckip) that was MIT licensed.
Debian suports this license ?
Yes, it does. There are several MIT-licensed packages in Debian.
What do you think? Is this license DFSG-free?:
http://www.evvk.com/evvktvh.html
If you are busy, do not bother; that license is really made tongue in
cheek. But I think it has same effect as releasing work as public domain.
P.S: I do not subscribe to this list, so please Cc: to me. I can read
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
(Don Armstrong):
Your interpretation would allow authors to identify any part of the
work that they wished as invariant, and then would claim that it is
Free Software.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I spoke on a typical GNU manual; not on every hypothetical work based on the
same license.
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evvk.com/evvktvh.html
The claim that it is completely legal to insert a medium containing
the software into a living donkey will be false in many jurisdictions
due to animal cruelty laws.
It is probably a bug in the drafting that this
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
Well, I will give a *very* specific example of why I am certain they are *not*
on the good side of the line. The GCC manual contains an essay called
Funding Free Software. I believe that this essay is inaccurate in the
details, that it gives bad advice, and that it presents an unrealistic
This has started a long thread on the Linux Australia mailing list
linux-aus - see http://lists.linux.org.au for archives. Please discuss
there as Avi Miller (a Squiz employee) is on the list and arguing to
the MD to release it under the GPL.
andrew
On 2/8/06, Avi Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
32 matches
Mail list logo
