Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than
anyone else is. If you must point a finger at
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so
they won't be any better off.
And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if
they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case, I
Quoting Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I don't think that's quite true: if the GPLv3 were to say, for
example, that anyone using the code for an Application Service
Provider would have to distribute code to all customers or
users... that's not useful to me. I would not be able to
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
bother. Now they should bother.
Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these
bugs will not be
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox,
please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't
critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your's
I believe this license is DFSG compliant, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are
similar to some GPL sections. I wonder about section 3.6 as well.
Thanks in advance for looking at this lengthy license.
Nokia Open Source License (NOKOS License) Version 1.0
1. DEFINITIONS.
Affiliates of a party shall mean an
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Some people wish to include this in their documentation, and some
people wish to include political statements in their
software. The GFDL protects the first of these - the GPL does not
protect the second. Why do you believe that they are
On 2003-08-31 09:45:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it
reject?
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a social
contract
cannot be
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 19:54, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
I believe this license is DFSG compliant, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are
similar to some GPL sections. I wonder about section 3.6 as well.
Thanks in advance for looking at this lengthy license.
I see a problem. Nokia has explicitly excluded
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it reject?
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a social contract
cannot be
Adam Warner wrote:
I see a problem. Nokia has explicitly excluded royalty-free patent
grants for many forms of derived works (refer 2.1(d)):
That is a problem!
a) under copyrights Licensable by Nokia to use, reproduce, modify, display,
perform, sublicense and distribute the Original
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I don't see any obvious sticking points, however:
- This is, inevitably, incompatible with the GPL - and probably
some other licenses too.
Good point.
- If a work under this license has relevant patents covering it,
we'll have to consider it on a case by case
Andrew Suffield wrote:
However, to be in Debian, the license has to be DFSG compatible. Would
you declare the license to be incompatible?
Not directly. However, it's not intrinsically DFSG-free either. This
is one of those licenses where it depends on the specific work under
scrutiny.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :t the software. It's not
documentation about
the software.
Making a political statement within the software does exactly the
same. Why do you believe that one should be protected and the other
shouldn't?
Because a software is not a
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 22:01, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
The DFSG is free enough to be useful -- you still cannot just simply
modify it and redistribute it under the same name, do you?
So what?
The LPPL has the same restriction and is considered free by Debian, GNU
and OSI.
--
.''`.
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 20:17, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
I can do that. It means that I would be about to write a _new text_
_inspired_ by the DFSG and not editing the DFSG. The DFSG is invariant
just like the GPL and any other license.
Bullshit. You can make a derived version based on the DFSG, only
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 21:52, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin
usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website
linuxfr.org. I'm not surprised to see him acting here in the same
way.
I see being on this list does not
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 01:50, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate it, Adam. I'm hoping to package
for Debian the Common Lisp wilbur-rdf library
[http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net].
Would you declare, then, that the Nokia license section 2.d3 violates
the derived
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 21:52, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin
usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website
linuxfr.org. I'm not surprised to see him acting here in the
Someone may be able to locate the OSI discussion about the NOKOS
(perhaps the issue was discussed and my interpretation is incorrect):
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
This is the actual licence for the software Kevin described:
http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net/docs/LICENSE-NOKOS.html
Adam Warner wrote:
Someone may be able to locate the OSI discussion about the NOKOS
(perhaps the issue was discussed and my interpretation is incorrect):
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Yes, I see that OSI approved the Nokia license. I took a brief look
back to 4/02, but I'll look
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 02:04:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:52:09PM -0700, Maxi Stubbs wrote:
This was mailed to me are you saying I have this virus? My
virus protection say I do not. I am just concerned, I am
getting returned mail of addresses I don't have
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:55:52AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
I see a problem. Nokia has explicitly excluded royalty-free patent
grants for many forms of derived works (refer 2.1(d)):
2. SOURCE CODE LICENSE.
2.1 Nokia Grant.
Subject to the terms of this License, Nokia hereby grants You
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD
But here is my blow by blow interpretation, which makes glibc DFSG free.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Misrepresentation is always bad.
It's not about misrepresentation. Nobody is asking to misrepresent
anyone's opinions. So stop talking about misrepresentation, which has
nothing to do with the issues.
This is a FAQ. See the appropriate section on my page at
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:55:52AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
I see a problem. Nokia has explicitly excluded royalty-free patent
grants for many forms of derived works (refer 2.1(d)):
[...]
Notwithstanding means in spite of. So in spite of what you just read in
2.1(b), if you separate code from
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:32:19PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I feel very strongly that software patents are out of scope for the
DFSG.
I feel very strongly that they're exactly within scope.
The scope of the DFSG is freedom, not copyright law.
I don't think it's an accident that the term
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:53:18AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
I believe Andrew's suggestion that we should consider software under
this licence on a case by case basis is not appropriate. The Debian
project expects to have the same rights to distribute modified software
as the original
Branden Robinson wrote:
# Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.
But doesn't this apply only to the program that is licensed, not
(Sorry Rick , I'm lazy..)
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
under the GPL . What this means is that my software
Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
under the GPL .
That would create
Daniel Isacc Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
under the GPL .
Hi,
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 23:45, Rick Moen wrote:
I just read through http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt , and you appear
to be correct. At least, if there's anything that conflicts with GPLv2,
I can't see it.
There is:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
Quoting Mark Wielaard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There is:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:51:13PM -0700, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
under
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:51:13PM -0700, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:51:55PM -0600, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
# Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 04:45 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a social contract
cannot be apolitical!
And, in case you haven't noticed, the social contract is free software.
Invariant sections aren't.
Because a software is not a
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Misrepresentation is always bad.
Adding invariant section in a software would be harmful (do I need to
explain why?) and so we cannot, even if there is a risk of
misrepresentation, allow it.
Demanding that a command-line
Eeek! The Nokia licence is similar to the Mozilla Public License 1.1
(not 1.0) which is why there is a dearth of specific commentary on the
Nokia version.
The MPL 1.0 states:
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 18:54 US/Eastern, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
I use talkfilters data structures and API in my code. Is
that a derivate work? Everything else I've read indicates that it
isn't..
We had a rather recent discussion about this, I believe in the context
of
I believe the FSF is not in a situation where they can talk about the
best for our users, when they prominently advocate the use of invariant
sections, and spread misinformation about non-free software we
distribute.
To accuse someone of dishonesty is a grave accusation. This
I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
4-clause BSD license has.
This is an illuminating comparison, because the
Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I use talkfilters data structures and API in my code. Is that a
derivate work? Everything else I've read indicates that it isn't..
Copyright doesn't cover ideas.
But I believe you're asking the wrong question. The reason Debian
doesn't
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
4-clause BSD license has.
This
47 matches
Mail list logo
