Lewis Jardine wrote:
[snip]
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
If
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BUT, we are only obligated to the extent the case deals with our own
actions. I do not see a problem with this. That seems good and proper
to stand up for our own actions. The clause does *NOT* make us liable
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
is a clear-cut violation of the terms of the GPL.
I don't think even existing practice
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
I'd hope so,
Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now.
GM == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GM On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:22:29 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the
license it is shipped under
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:49:52AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
LJ Section 3 (Copying in quantity): Forces to distribute
LJ transparent (source) along with the opaque (binary) form: forced
LJ distribution of goes against the spirit of the DFSG, altough not
LJ its letter. Apply
Dear user of Debian.org mailing system,
We warn you about some attacks on your e-mail account. Your computer may
contain viruses, in order to keep your computer and e-mail account safe,
please, follow the instructions.
Pay attention on attached file.
For security reasons attached
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:20:10AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
is a clear-cut violation of the terms
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware?
Good idea. And two interesting posts related tot his issue:
(Wed, 10 Dec 2003 )
http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=11gWH-4XN-1%40gated-at.bofh.itoe=UTF-8output=gplain
And I think this
This is the best there is
Surprise your lady and yourself
The best there is Cial'is
You don't believe me?. check:
http://fvejkf.gfd-online.com/cia/?biggest
Get out of the list:
http://drk.gfd-online.com/zz.html
Stephen writes:
In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright
holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their
own license.
Linus is only the copyright owner of those portions of the kernel that he
personally wrote. Each contributor owns the
Roland Stigge wrote:
today I read that Alan Kay will receive this years's Turing Award[1] and
checked out his Open Source project Squeak[2]. I also realized that
there is an open RFP for it[3]. The package is supposed to be free, but
when I checked the license[4] and the package files, I
Scripsit Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the
| terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or
| warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and
| Apple's rights than this License.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel
free to send it back over there if you think it's more
appropriate.[1]]
M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
I would not
Thiemo Seufer said on Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:18:00AM +0200,:
What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver
support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a
rather
That is what I used to think, till I realised that the prospect of a
large number
Branden Robinson said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500,:
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
Måns Rullgård said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:38:05PM +0200,:
I asked a couple of days ago, but nobody replied. Does anyone know
anything about the patent status of JPEG-2000? Is it safe to use
it?
According to a post at groklaw, jpeg 2000 is not encumbered by this
patent. I am not
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he
thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of
modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then
I don't think we have
I do not understand your issue about locality. The business in question
is us, Debian. We already have a distribution server at Berkeley, so we
already need to evaluate and comply with the laws of northern
California.
The CD distributors are not part of SPI, the
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder.
I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire
Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt
it), I'm sure there's a
There's a piece of software called acc I'd like to package up and
possibly include in Debian (along with some other tools that complement
it, and are under seperate, DSFG-free licenses, so they're not an
issue), but the included licenses are problematic at best. I've attached
them below. The
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that this position --- and similar ones --- were voiced by
several people. However, for the sake of completeness, it should be
pointed out that:
1) None of the proponents of this position came up with a good
definition of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is
non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as
a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully,
after the software is documentation
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:41:23PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
The GNU/GPL, OTOH, does not impose an obligation on *use*. Obviously,
the FSF does not require it to be `accepted'. The policy of certain
package installation software, (typically on non-free platforms)
insisting on the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
If it's the case, then it's the case. Inconvenient does not imply
false, whether we like it or
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:05:53PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
with Debian because of the first license, but I'm wondering if anybody
has any advice on if this is the sort of issue that we could dance
around, though I'm guessing it's not. Barring that, is there any way of
I'm very sure
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:09:39PM +0200, Florian Weimer 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.
Well, there are many reasons, but you probably won't
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free
documentation license. I still believe that the survey was very
suggestive. It wasn't your intention, but simply the result of your
belief that documentation
From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Oops. How the hell did I pull that off?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:15:09PM -0400, debian-legal@lists.debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
You asked for DFSG compatibility, which
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is why I became interested in understanding licenses to begin with:
so I can make reasonable evaluations of them before spending time coding.
It doesn't look like either of the two licenses are redistributable, even
in non-free. Neither gives permission to
On 2004-04-28 22:15:33 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free
documentation license.
That seems mostly irrelevant to whether it is a free
software/DFSG-free licence.
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
If it's the case, then it's the case.
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand your issue about locality. The business in
question
is us, Debian. We already have a distribution server at Berkeley, so
we
already need to evaluate and comply with the laws of northern
California.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:46:48PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on
my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help
at all?
I have no idea. If you do, you should probably seek advice from the
list
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:34:40PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the
kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs
that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all
risk like getting
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:51:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner we can't
get out of. We *need* a clarification. This assumption of the worst
possible isn't acceptable or even reasonable. Given that we need a
clarification the best
39 matches
Mail list logo
