Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself. If one of your customers is a competitor, or a
competitor buys out a user, any
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
I'm beginning to think that there is, as it restricts the use that an
individual can put a given bit of source to in his or her own home.
First, does that cause any problems for Debian?
I don't
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it would cause a problem with the majority of people who
are using or modifying Free Software, as (I would imagine) most of
them don't have anything to hide... but to someone who does?
I thought of a scenario, which seems entirely
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:48:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself. If one
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Consider Fred the Lawyer. [...]
He'll write a computer program, tailored specially for Joe's Sheet Rock;
Joe can then input the details of the particular arrangement, [...]
Fred wants to use a popular free software
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
a request by the Primary Copyright Holder, you must provide
a copy of your modifications as at the date of the request in
source form, at cost, to the Primary
OK. It seems like i won't need a week to get your point of view.
Thankyou very much to all of you who had voted and sent explanations.
They had been very valuable for me.
First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
dupload in a day or two.
So now, we can discuss the
GPL, not GLP. (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're
consistently spelling it incorrectly.)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So now, we can discuss the rest of the matter. But keep in mind the
precedent point, please.
Could you repeat what the precendent
Glenn wrote:
GPL, not GLP. (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're
consistently spelling it incorrectly.)
Ya. Sorry for the typo.
Could you repeat what the precendent point is? I missed it.
Precedent point is we are not aguing about moving it to non-free. This
is already decided and
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
a) Move it to non-free
That's my opinion.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I believe that there IS a fundamental difficulty with such licenses.
Consider the case where a company's modifications encode certain business
logic details. =20
This doesn't
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
your secrets only with your customers, though.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to use a modified GPLed program
internally and never tell one's customers about it.
That's
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Were you to say that the teachers may only take the software under the terms
of the BSD license, and that everyone else may only take it under the terms
of the GPL, then I don't believe we would have such a clear consensus.
It would make me uneasy, at
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software. These items, when distributed, are subject
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:59:18PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I completely agree with that :-)
Recent comments on this list make it clear that 2a and 2c are intended to
apply to modifications you make regardless of whether you distribute. I'd
Well, I
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:54:15AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, the user of the software already has rights under fair use to
modify it, before even agreeing to the license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00039.html
--
Glenn Maynard
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
your secrets only with your customers, though.
I don't believe this is the case: I have code which is a proprietary
typesetting package based on GPL'd works. My customers give
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
dupload in a day or two.
Thank you.
Richard Braakman wrotes:
1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
3.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Convince me that in this imperfect world, as we try to make things
more transparent, and give people more control and access over the
software that affects them, that being able to get access to the
sourcecode for
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Braakman wrotes:
1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
3. Therefore, the condition is also DFSG-free
That's my point of view. We have judge
Oops, this was supposed to be cc'd to debian-legal not debian-devel.
Drew Daniels
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:04:01 +0100
From: Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lzw patent search
Hi,
Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
When do all the lzw related patents expire? I've heard different
Steve Langasek said:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
I think the key there is _useful_ source. Obfuscated forms that can
not be turned back into useful source should not be allowed. Encypted
forms (if the recipient doesn't have the key) don't give useful
source.
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain
Branden Robinson said:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Nick Phillips said:
I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather
something connected to the meaning of the source and the
achievability of the source's object.
Can have useful source
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
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
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of
information, same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into
the functionality of the code itself. If one of your customers is a
competitor, or a
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
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
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain no competitive
advantage from
Barak Pearlmutter said:
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
binaries) Can she make modifications/improvements to
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:27, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive
rights of
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Fred's pretty silly for not having looked into this in the first place.
Especially being a lawyer.
That's not the point. The point is that demanding disclosure is like
demanding payment: it's NOT FREE. The point is not that Fred is
trapped; it's
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't quite understand how you get this from the GPL.
(Assumption: you give binaries to Y, but only a written offer for source,
since it's your secret. You'll give them to Y if they ask for them)
The offer to any third party in Clause 3 seems to mean
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Yes, it does: it's quite possible to write code in such a way that when
compiled, it's near impossible to work out exactly what's going. There's
a whole swath of research on obfuscation. The GPL says well, sure,
go ahead, but you have to include
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are there really two desert island tests?
We have generally combined these; I'm not sure much would be helped by
separating them.
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group
is *much* easier to draw a line around. So we use
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
True, but they also typically had access to copy binaries (and
therefore, get source code).
The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a
machine where a few other people could log in and access them in
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:46, Joe Moore wrote:
Barak Pearlmutter said:
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
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,
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to non-recipient
users still be considered free?
My answers are no and no.
True. Ever
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about my list of software that I am a user of? The software my
dentist uses to track patient records? The software the University
uses to track my grades? The software that Congress uses to track
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but I haven't really seen any.
What about an ATM
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[ more good argument snipped]
Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying
and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to
give that liberty to users, since (when user and
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I do not think this is going to happen, especially given AGPL's (2)(d).
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail to
see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive
rights of copyright holders. Please
Comments anyone?
Seems like a dodge on my questions about Unix compress and GIF, but it is
interesting in that now we don't have to speculate on whether the
Japanese, European or German patents go longer.
Drew Daniels
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:25:25
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that
Hi,
I hate to bug you again, but is this the patented basic LZW algorithm the
only Unisys patented algorithm which the GIF file format and Unix Compress
use? If you are unsure, what other patents might be involved?
Drew Daniels
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tartler, Cheryl D. wrote:
The last basic
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to BrinWorld,
removes much of the financial
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Free software preserves the possessor's legal liberty to change the
software, something that only legal limitation was previously blocking
him in. But forced publication at all: how does this increase the
user's liberty to
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution?
Even if it's agreed that the current language restricts
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, QPLed software (which contains a obnoxious clause in this
direction) has made its way into Debian...
Where? Recall that Qt itself is dual-licensed under the GNU GPL and the
QPL.
I wonder if some people recklessly assumed
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 09:12, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Wouldn't a requirement that if you make the software available for
use
to another party, you provide an offer of source to those users
make
much more sense, and avoid entanglements with the function of the
software?
That would be
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:40:58PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:28:27AM -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)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:39:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Fred wants to use a popular free software package which almost does
just the job: QNU Madlibs. But QNU Madlibs is distributed under the
QPL. What the Fred
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:55:24AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
I disagree with #1 and #2. And, in fact, I belive that the PHPNuke
author's interpretation of GPL 2c is so bizarre that it's not actually
GPL-licensed software anymore.
Actually, it's possible that the author is not interpreting GPL
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, can it be
used in a business?
That depends on the type of business,
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG WE MUST UNIFY
folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 09:55:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think Barak's point is: should we revisit that decision?
I think we should.
The case law metaphor appears to have a lot more traction now than it
did a year to a year-and-a-half ago.
And case law sometimes means
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:04, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of modified versions
without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause). Normally,
extending a library with a main
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:44, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to
non-recipient
users still
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's my point of view. We have judge Mr.F.Burzi and found him guilty.
I do not believe this is a fair representation of the opinion of
*anyone* on debian-legal.
The license on PHPNuke has been judged as incompatible with the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:40:15AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Does PHP-Nuke contain any GPL code besides the author's? If so, he's
combining GPL-incompatible code with GPL code, in which case Debian
can't distribute it at all.
This is an extremely important point; Mr. Espuny, please research
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For me, _The Transparent Society_ might more closely resemble a
dystopian novel than a utopian one.
Perhaps Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, wherein the perfect number-citizens
of a future totalitarian world-state live in apartment blocks with
completely
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the code they're hacking on is the least of
their worries - it's the
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current
interpretation of Fair
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[NOTE: This is a personal opinion.]
I think patch clauses are onerous, too;
I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
license non-DFSG-free. Unless
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case
law, they have a lot in common with the US
Branden Robinson wrote:
This is an extremely important point; Mr. Espuny, please research this
issue and get back to us as soon as you can. If Mr. Landry's fears are
founded, then Debian might be infringing the copyrights of people
*other* than Mr. Burzi, *right now*.
OK, Branden. I will
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes
I don't recall this; do you have a
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, QPLed software (which contains a obnoxious clause in this
direction) has made its way into Debian...
Where?
ocaml is the canonical example; but there are others. I've even seen
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:01:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Because it's kept entirely within the entity that created it (it being the
derivative work based on gs).
I don't believe that would generally be counted as distribution. But IANAL
etc.
I do. And so apparently does
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But in order that users may evade the government's laws, Free Software
must allow certain freedoms (although Thomas Bushnell and I may disagree
on what they are).
But the dissident test require licenses to allow every possible tactic
for evading
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Fred situation is about some hypothetical license which *isn't
the AGPL* which wouldn't pass the Desert Island or Dissident tests
anyway. If Fred used some AGPL'd code, there would be a different set
of issues. Consider the following:
Fred's
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of
devising a way to change the DFSG...
Sure.
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Free software preserves the possessor's legal liberty to change the
software, something that only legal limitation was previously blocking
him in. But forced publication at all: how does this increase the
user's liberty to change the software?
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of modified versions
without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
Clause 3(b) seems to require forced distribution of some sort,
86 matches
Mail list logo
