Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute,
and to request the publishers to make the license clearer.
Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group
rather than just one person talking.
Yeah,
Hi -legal folks
John changed license in 1.2.11 and released again with a full GPL
license, removing post-card condition, (he thanks for our
plain and polite management of the issue - for -legal people,
hip hip hurrah!!! :) ).
So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
in
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
You believe there is *no* ambiguity regarding the words reads commands
interactively when run and started running for [...] interactive use,
that this is always limited to cases where a single invocation of an
executable program presents an
So we could go straight with proftpd 1.2.8. The release currently
in sid will be updated as a consequence.
The license problem unfortunately applies to woody release, also.
Maybe should we propose an update for this in r2? IMHO we could
consider to add a note in its README.Debian.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so
long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example,
this license abides by the DFSG: This software is licensed under the
GPL and
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:18:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've read it.
In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
object code as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
an
rl == Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rl We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in
rl mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the correct wording
(whatever that means) but isn't it easy enough to
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is making
to specifically target the ASP problem.
*fsf hat on*
The Affero license (AGPL, http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html) should
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:27:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
As a result, the output of tr a-z A-Z may be either source code *or*
object code, *depending on the intent of the party making this change*.
else that the GPL doesn't permit distribution of. I'm happy to be
generous and say
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
rl == Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rl We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in
rl mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the correct wording
(whatever that
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:36:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Is there consensus that DFSG#10 really is a grandfather clause? I've seen
this interpretation offered a number of times, but I've never seen any
strong agreement to it. I find the interpretation hard to buy, personally,
given
Branden Robinson said:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few advantages:
* It's
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
That would solve the chinese dissident problem, at least (not sure
how relevant the desert island test, because I agree with something
someone said here, that in some countries, Italy for example, you
can't be
Package: phpnuke
Version: n/a
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream, woody, sarge, sid
(John Goerzen is the person who originally noted this.)
/usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright contains the following:
##
#
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The major change is section (2)(d), which says, in short, If the
program has quine-like functionality to give you a link to the running
source code, you can't remove it.
I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
clause to the GPL.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
I am only talking about the instance of a web app which, though it
exists as a series of discrete scripts that communicate with the user
through a stateless HTTP connection, presents a unified interactive
session.
Sure, but why
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:44:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used earlier)
and deploy it
rl == Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rl To be clear, it pretty much already says that. Specifically:
[...]
rl So, the gulf here is not as wide as some may think. I believe
rl I understand the beef; proponents of the Chinese dissident
rl litmus test would prefer that
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, note that a lot of other GPL software (including all GNU text/code
processing tools I'm familiar with) specifically exempts the output from
being regarded as a derivative work of the processing tool. For bison,
gcc and the like, there may be
sl == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sl I have a hard time believing that this really provides any
sl protection in the case where you *choose* to modify the source
sl code without first verifying that you are able to comply with
sl the terms of the license. This is
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also,
I think it's about time we made up our minds one way or the other about
the GNU FDL. The latter is an issue that we need to resolve internally
first.
I thought Debian had decided that invariant sections, as they are now,
are definitively
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:35:19PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Similarly, I would argue that, if you derive benefit from using the
PHP-Nuke engine to assemble your homepage into its final form for
presentation, it is not *wholly* original.[1] Even if it is no longer a
derivative work of the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Sure, but why limit it to web apps? Almost all apps communicate with the
user in some manner. How is delivering a blob of HTML to a renderer in
response to a query any different from delivering a blob of text to a
logfile
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm not sure you've answered the question I meant to ask. Let me try to
rephrase: if debian-legal finds that such a requirement from upstream is a
legitimate clarification of the GPL (rather than an additional
restriction
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I can see thatthe RPSL talks about making modifications
publicly available, which is IMHO cumbersome.
I would suggest turning this into a request rather than a
requirement. Then there's no problem at all.
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to write down the correct wording
(whatever that means) but isn't it easy enough to clearly state that
if you modify RPSL-covered code and you *don't* distribute it, you are
not obliged to distribute the
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I understand the Chinese dissident example, and it's
actually illuminating, but as Russ points out, not at all captured
in the DFSG. If it's important to the Debian community, it should
probably be captured there.
The DFSG is an internal guide,
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS does anybody know whythe chinese dissident test has that
chinese sticked to it? I find it a bit simplicistic. :)
Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and have
nothing barely approaching free speech, China also happens
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and
tb have nothing barely approaching free speech, China also
tb happens to have a substantial population of computer users and
tb hackers and people who might actually be
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I can see that the RPSL talks about making modifications
publicly available, which is IMHO cumbersome.
tb I would suggest turning this into a request rather than a
tb
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb No, it wouldn't, because Chinese dissidents want to share the
tb software with each other. That's distribution. But they
tb don't want to have to advertise their activities to the
tb Chinese government.
a. iff you modify RPSL
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure, but so far the OSD has taken a fundamentally different tack from
everyone else doing free software. By getting into the game of a
definition and a rigid test for what is and is not free, a massive
amount of very valuable
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I can see that the RPSL talks about making modifications
publicly available, which is IMHO cumbersome.
tb I would suggest
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb Of the various nations which severely repress dissidents and
tb have nothing barely approaching free speech, China also
tb happens to have a substantial population of computer users and
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb No, it wouldn't, because Chinese dissidents want to share the
tb software with each other. That's distribution. But they
tb don't want to have to advertise their activities to the
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If, therefore, OSD-free gets written into some law granting special
patent rights to free software, say, then that's something that we can
all live with quite happily.
You are assuming that the use of the definitions won't be inverted.
Suppose
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
way, to print or display an announcement
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:36:18PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
(2)(c) concerns the act of modification.
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:55, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless distribution has occured.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:10:17PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
Ean, I expostulated one perspective in the following message:
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By that definition, Apache is interactive, as is the Linux kernel.
Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
guess you could say grep responds to SIGKILL being
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
There's no way to keep the sourced locked into an obfuscated
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:10:22PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Is indent(1) lossless?
No.
Should it be considered a transformation?
No.
It is certainly a trivial modified work.
Exactly. It's a modification, not a transformation.
The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c newsource.c) is
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 23:43, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only*
provides an exemption if the Program itself is interactive but does not
normally print such an announcement.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
comment period, and then the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5. There's an exception.
6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
library) isn't itself interactive.
7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating the GPL.
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
--
Glenn Maynard
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian doesn't *have* a definition.
Well, we call it a guideline but I'm not sure I see a difference.
The difference is that a guideline, as we use the term, is an
*internal* tool. We do not pretend that the guideline exhausts the
meaning of free,
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Since I think something
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the
source to a modified program AND that program is intractive.
No! (2)(c) doesn't contain the first part of that -- it doesn't
require
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:32, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5. There's an exception.
6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
library) isn't itself interactive.
7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:39, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
would be happy for it to brew some more
I'm cc'ing debian-legal for the legal part of this discussion.
LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
some versions of the gif file format.
There may not be reason to exclude lzw and related code as the LZW
patent is running out.
Can we please, please, please start another thread to discuss this?!
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is
Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
some versions of the gif file format.
Minor history. Unix had compact, which used Huffman compaction.
Compress came along later, and the main force behind it was Usenet.
I
I said earlier:
The reason I dislike the Affero bit is that it is a further
restriction on freedom. I stand for freedom. I like freedom. I
learned about freedom from RMS, but he has apparently decided that
freedom is no longer all it's cracked up to be. Is there any value in
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Does anyone believe the GPL unambiguously *dis*allows that
interpretation?
I do. 2c applies to running of the program
Please re-read (2)(c). It restricts the *modification* of the program.
2c requires that, when modifying the program, you
Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also am curious as to whether Unisys can collect royalties after
their patent runs out. I suspect this may be illegal, or at least
immoral.
They can collect fees from anyone who has contracted to pay them
fees. But once the patent runs out, it
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
request transmission to that user of the
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:39, Henning Makholm wrote:
I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
clause to the GPL.
Why don't you read the actual (2)(d),
That's what I did.
and propose changes:
Pipe it through sed /./d?
--
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring 2 itself:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of
Section 1 above,
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's enough reason for
me to stop releasing code under version 2 or later of the GNU GPL:
the persistent spectre that future versions will prohibit certain
sorts of functional modifications.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Which is ambiguous in itself.
Duly noted.
I've been conviently ignoring the ambiguity (for now). Suffice it to
say that between the abiguity and USC Title 17 Section 107 [not to
mention the impraticality of finding someone who modifies without
Hola amig@:
Me llamo Beatriz y te escribo desde Madrid, España. Formo parte de un equipo
del Movimiento Humanista y me gustaría comentarte algunos temas.
Hoy son ya millones de personas las que experimentan cómo la sociedad en que
vivimos se deshumaniza día a día. El ser humano ha perdido todo
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Here's a disastrous consequence. [...]
In this context (but not directly on-topic), I'd like to tell about
a little service we had running at Wapit, where I worked on Kannel[1].
It was a limited facility for web browsing via
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:47:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'd really rather punt on this, as a real court might, and not rule on
this until an issue comes before us where it is the only thing standing
between a package and Debian main. (I think the legal slang for this
is, the issue
Breaking the thread and changing the subject.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
And, the real killer, it fails the Chinese dissident test rather
75 matches
Mail list logo
