Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections.
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation
license, as long as the invariant sections
On Apr 26, 2004, at 18:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is JPEG any different than GIF was
I don't remember that anyone was actually sued for using the LZW
compression algorithm (certainly not a company rather close to
Debian). Maybe the case was so
On Apr 26, 2004, at 20:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections.
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
be settled by Amsterdam City Court.
I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
sentence a choice of venue? It doesn't feel
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other
software,
PO == Per Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PO On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be
some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote:
Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which
section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why.
It actually does, for every single instance where -legal located a
problem.
Scroll down, and read carefully. [Or search for DFSG.]
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014.
Random patents
Auto-Responder ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-
Thank you for your mail!
I will be out of the office from the 21 April till 1 May, I
will answer you as soon as i return.
Best regards,
Rodolphe
-
Visit our
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not
in
@ 27/04/2004 11:31 : wrote Milan Zamazal :
PO == Per Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PO On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be
some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
One patent in their portfolio
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
DFSG#1:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
I will try again, before going home.
@ 27/04/2004 18:03 : wrote Milan Zamazal :
HM == Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM man, have you *read* the thing?
Yes.
HM Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::
I asked for a particular DFSG term which is violated
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
One patent in their
@ 27/04/2004 18:47 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is
certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally
inappropriate.
And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the
possibility.
Here, the only law that
Milan Zamazal wrote:
HM == Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HM 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1
DFSG#1:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, I do agree that it's not necessary to fight this battle right
now, as the OSL 2.0 is defective in other, less controversial, respects.
I think it's not controversial that the OSL software patent clause is
overbroad.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Steven Augart wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
[...]
This issue was discussed
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:25:17PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
more difficult. This
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which engage
in too much contract-like behavior, because they're usually non-free.
In particular, any license which requires that you agree to it in
order to *use* it --
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
to be
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:32:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections.
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:28:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good
reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software
don't apply to documentation.
That's easy.
So we can ship more shit in main.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3]
and proprietary
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations.
The author's opinion
[I'm not subcribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
I tend to prefer the author's opinion
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who are.
From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
If you want to avoid every imaginable
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
Debian immediately.
Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
license violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
36 matches
Mail list logo
