On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 15:24, Richard Stallman wrote:
Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often
shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were
reasons to consider a license non-free.
This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences are
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The simple license -- what I have been calling the traditional GNU
documentation license, reads as follows:
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice and this permission
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Making a contract is no violation of the Berne Convention (and
contract doesn't mean you have always to sign anything).
I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it was.
There are different ways to implement the rules of the Berne
Convention,
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The question whether a copyright license necessarily is a contract has
nothing to do with the Berne Convention.
I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it did.
(As with my making that same comment to Andreas, I'm being _ironic_:
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
B downloading from A is not a problem. The problem is: How can C get a
valid contract from A, but he is downloading only from B? Well, A has
said GPLv2, and within the first condition he has given implicit
permission to make a GPLv2-contract on his
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
17 USC 106 (3) lists four ways for a copy to be distributed. [...]
If you think 17 USC limits the means of distribution of a copyrighted
work's instance to only four, and somehow precludes for software
anything other that sale or lease, then I think
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
least) not
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
* GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, for the 3.0.3 (or later)
version of the GNU implementation of AWK.
This manual's new license is:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
* Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030908 10:01]:
Are you saying that parties to German contracts aren't required to have
the legal capacity to enter into contracts? Are they binding against
infants? Somehow, I rather doubt it.
I don't know the law, but think there are some restrictions for
In general, if http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/legal doesn't
answer your questions sufficiently, please let us know what is
missing so we can alter the content.
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have a question about the single CD that was distributed at
LinuxTag for example, did it also include the
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
This license is obviously (to me) DFSG-free:
* There are no use or copying (as such) restrictions at all.
* Permission to modify is unfettered except for preservation of license
terms.
* Permission to redistribute is
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:08:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
If the point is obvious, my apologies, but: If sufficiently motivated
people are annoyed by the ongoing conversion of GNU documentation to GFDL,
they may at any time fork the final non-GFDL version and maintain
derivative works
[ Mailing list admins, please see the end of this message. ]
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:11:16AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
* GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, for the 3.0.3 (or later)
version of the GNU
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
[ UH OH. I just noticed that the de-spamification of the mailing
list archives has caused some URLs from Google to point to the wrong
messages. IMO this is deeply unfortunate. :(
For example, search Google for final interpretive guideline DFSG
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The question whether a copyright license necessarily is a contract has
nothing to do with the Berne Convention.
I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it did.
You said in your previous message that you had
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 02:35]:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for
sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone
stands up right now to actually
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 10:05]:
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If I make an offer and you accept it, we've got a contract.
You're saying there are _no_ other required elements of contract
formation under German law? That seems very difficult to
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:11:16AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
* GAWK: The GNU Awk User's Guide; Edition 2, for the 3.0.3 (or later)
version of the GNU implementation of AWK.
This manual's new license is:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:49:12AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
17 USC 106 (3) lists four ways for a copy to be distributed.
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You said in your previous message that you had in mind the
overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright
regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such
additions. I interpreted this to mean that you thought
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Thank you for your explanation of the common law.
You're quite welcome.
Well, we really have two legal systems in the world, the Roman Law
(including the countries of both Roman Empires, that including Russia
as sucessor of the east-roman empire,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:06:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:08:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
If the point is obvious, my apologies, but: If sufficiently motivated
people are annoyed by the ongoing conversion of GNU documentation to GFDL,
they may at any time
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[USA Copyright Act:]
It lists the four ways in which a copyright holder has the exclusive
right to distribute a work. Leasing is the type of distribution
typically considered for software. Leases follow the forms of Contract
Law.
What other type
Quoting Richard Braakman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Um, you missed or other transfer of ownership. The recipient
gains ownership of a copy (and sometimes this is an actual sale,
where money changes hands), and gets a license to make and
distribute further copies under certain conditions.
Thank
Quoting Joe Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If that is the case (that a meeting of the minds is required for a valid
contract to be formed), and a contract is required for a software license,
then where is the meeting when Dell resells Microsoft's software?
Allegedly, Dell is operating as
Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote:
Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these
manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation,
unless the same text happens to already exist somewhere else
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:08:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:06:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these
manuals into their
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
name stable is, release name in []):
now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04
1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1]
2 sun[woody]
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has
been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a
decision on the matter yet. It'll hopefully happen in the next few
months; it was stalled behind
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:28:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think you'll find most of the people who want to remove non-free
would not have a serious problem with removing the GFDLed
documentation.
As far as I'm concerned, if something is not free enough for main, it is not
part of
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 17:35]:
Quoting Joe Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If that is the case (that a meeting of the minds is required for a valid
contract to be formed), and a contract is required for a software license,
then where is the meeting when Dell resells Microsoft's
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has
been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a
decision on the matter yet. It'll
... the fact that either you've stopped endorsing Debian, or
you've become more vocal about it.
I have never endorsed Debian, because ever since it became mature
enough to be technically suitable, it had the problem of recommending
and including non-free packages. Of course, the other
That's not a serious and sustained conversation. Such a
conversation would require that you seriously and carefully attend to
all the questions that other people ask, even the ones that make you
mad, even the ones that you think are attacks, even the ones that you
think are
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 14:10 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
Think of the DRM-version of the binary and the non-DRM-version as the
source. It is certain legal to give away binaries (aka DRM-enabled
versions) as long as you also provide access to the source.
Sure. You can offer/provide
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that
prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is
unambiguous non-free ?
That would be #1.
The LICENSE of a Debian component may
Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote:
Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these
manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation,
unless the same
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You said in your previous message that you had in mind the
overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright
regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such
additions. I interpreted this to
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:38:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as
there is no free implementation.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this
is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's OK to
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:46:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You may want to send these questions to RMS. He is not subscribed to
-legal, as far as I know.
I'm just musing about the issue now :) Eventually I might mail
him a big list, pointing out which current Invariant Sections
don't
chuckbaker1 is primary account. I'm trying to
set me up as 2nd E-mail address without luck. I'm susanbaker1. On
Dial-up Connection, it keeps coming up as "Invalid User Name or Password.
I think my password needs to be reset to GypRose. When he or I sign into
the internet, on the Dial-Up
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have never endorsed Debian, because ever since it became mature
enough to be technically suitable, it had the problem of recommending
and including non-free packages. Of course, the other alternatives
have generally been worse. So I have not
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:10:10 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between:
We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing
terms of their
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not a serious and sustained conversation. Such a
conversation would require that you seriously and carefully attend to
all the questions that other people ask, even the ones that make you
mad, even the ones that you think are
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]:
I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and
releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some
weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release,
and we have a reputation for
ckOp ma 08-09-2003, om 18:40 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 14:10 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
Think of the DRM-version of the binary and the non-DRM-version as the
source. It is certain legal to give away binaries (aka DRM-enabled
versions) as long as you also
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that
prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not
try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and
*certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution.
The DFSG is indeed in our users
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 18:05]:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
name stable is, release name in []):
now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04
1 sun[woody]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street.
This is the standard that applies to both sides. Are there questions
you think Debian hasn't answered? Has Debian announced that it will
ignore whatever you say because you
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Your implicit assumption that methods of distribution of a
copyrighted work must be enumerated specifically in the Copyright Act
in order to be lawful is blatantly absurd, and I do not accept it.
The issue is not whether they are lawfull or not, but
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 12:44 US/Eastern, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks
only of the license.
Before someone yells at me, that second sentence should read DFSG 1
clearly..., not DFSG clearly.
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Sure. You can offer/provide it alongside, or you can give the offer
(good for three years) to provide it at cost.
ITYM 'at a reasonable price for distributing the media' :-)
No, for a charge no more than your cost of
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
Um, you missed or other transfer of ownership.
I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general.
The recipient gains ownership of a copy (and sometimes this is an
actual sale, where money changes hands), and gets a license to make
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:12 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks
only of the license.
The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits distribution
on DRM media.
The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that
prohibiting DRM (in order to
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but we're generally not talking about sale or transfer of
ownership in the context of free software licenses, because the
license limits what you can do with your copy. That is, I often can't
take my copy, modify it, and resell the binary to
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]:
I think you are mixing up archived copy of old releases and
releasing. Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some
weight; and there are large numbers of
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve.
I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to
happen *now*.
Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just
do
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:46:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
Um, you missed or other transfer of ownership.
I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general.
It looks very general to me, covering all transfers of ownership like
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or
probably even punch cards, because that's not on a medium customarily
used for software interchange.
The medium restriction you note refers only to the source code. We can
distribute Debian on orange
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:47:34PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:12 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks
only of the license.
The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but we're generally not talking about sale or transfer of
ownership in the context of free software licenses, because the
license limits what you can do with your copy. That is, I often can't
take
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
That's a restriction imposed by copyright law, not by the license.
Unless you're talking about a modification-in-place, without making
any copies in the process.
Yes, I'm talking about a modification-in-place. After re-reading I see
I didn't make
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
That's a very rare event when talking about electronic media. Yes,
you can draw funny pictures of RMS on the tapes you bought from the
FSF, and then resell them.
Sure, but the software license purports to restrict this. The
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are
distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it
be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG
documentation', which
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve.
I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to
happen *now*.
Of course not. We can put
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law
and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases.
*NOT* in the case of licenses that are considered free.
A week ago Mika asked two legal questions and a Debian-policy question.
I'm not sure this extensive thread has managed to answer his questions
yet (or recently whether it has even been addressing them.)
Some looking around on the web revealed that Dan Ravicher, one of the
pro-bono attorneys
[NB: I am subscribed to this list. It is not necessary to Cc: me.]
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If what I did was ok, then you could trivially circumvent most (if
not all) copyleft licenses, simply by purchasing a copy (downloading
it from the original offerer), modifying
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law
and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
There is nothing in the law that I've seen which prevents someone
from authoring and distributing a piece of software on principles
other than those governing leases; and no license that passes the
DFSG could ever be predicated on a lease, given that
Hi RMS,
On Montag 08 September 2003 18:09, Richard Stallman wrote:
While nominally Debian GNU/Linux does not include the non-free
software, the non-free software is distributed from the same
server. We cannot recommend one without effectively
recommending the other. Further, the distribution
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The issue is not whether they are lawfull or not, but merely that
those are the only forms of distribution available exclusively to the
copyright holder.
You are question-begging, again. Sorry, I still do not accept the
premise.
No, it does not
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Perhaps I'm just not seeing or understanding clearly, but so far no
one who claims that free software licenses are neither a lease nor a
contract (at least in the US) has explained what type of legal
agreement they would be.
Just for the sake of
Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
True. However, since we were discussing whether a license
necessarily is a contract, it seems strange to bring up
a copyright treaty that has nothing to do with contracts.
Actually, it's that other guy who's fixated on contracts.
Once again: I am subscribed to -legal. Please follow debian list
policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
They are *grants of permission*, which is an existing
well-established category. The closest traditional analog in the old
common law was
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law
and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases.
*NOT* in
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I'm just not seeing or understanding clearly, but so far no
one who claims that free software licenses are neither a lease nor a
contract (at least in the US) has explained what type of legal
agreement they would be.
They are *grants of
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Moreover, the enforceability of shrinkwrap licences has been heavily
contested and is in ongoing doubt, as they have tended to be ruled to
be contracts of adhesion (i.e., lacking in meaningful privity of
contract).
Certainly. But the mere application of
80 matches
Mail list logo
