On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello debian-legal.
I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL
is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution
to it when time
,--- Forwarded message (begin)
Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
From: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Colin Watson wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright
license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents.
Such as not claiming in a lawsuit that the work infringes a patent? :-)
Well, in that case, there are two possibilities:
(1) The work doesn't
MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect a first step is to split the licences into copyright and
trademark sections if possible.
That's not necessarily necessary if it's a very permissive license and is
written very carefully, but it is probably a good idea.
I assume this needs to be a US law
copyright
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
applicable laws.
License grantors do
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
least one Free document in the word processor's format,
Except that in this case, new documents could be created with the word
processor, so it would work
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Package name: musicxml
* URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
* License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public License
Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, 2-clause BSD, MIT/X11.
(We have high hopes that CC-by will be amended to be so but it isn't now.)
How do you guys think about marks, and
Walter Landry wrote:
There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
The choice of venue and the send changes back clauses are both
problematic.
We do think it doesn't have *that* many problems. :-)
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:41:00AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 02:55]:
I fail to see why debian-legal's undelegated status is at all relevant
given our current leadership philsophy.
The difference is that
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! --
and happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to
distribute it
before he's ready!
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
Andreas Barth wrote:
That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* right to not have to share
modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications.
What right? :-)
--
There are
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that
are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that
change if you distribute the software privately to one other person?
No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
network, but
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time anyway? What practical benefit does this
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with
| Request Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you
| are the copyright holder for those
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Send it to a third party and reveal your identity are just as readily
read as non-free from DFSG#1 as pet a cat and distribution only on CD.
If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
the latter
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello debian-legal.
I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a
solution
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do
MJ Ray wrote:
Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
like to propose replacing them with:
1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By replying to any messages in this thread, you agree to order me a pizza.
So, what's your address and what's your local pizza place? ;-)
The above is merely a false statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a
MJ Ray wrote:
In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
currently in
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In any event, the Technical Committee and Project Secretary are not and
cannot be delegates under the Constitution[1].
Additionally, most port- and CDD-maintainers are not delegates (and they
certainly are not delegates in their
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't!
Nathaneal Nerode writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
I would assume that if a licensor put such a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient
to render MP3 players
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand,
is something that is of interest
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* right to not have to share
modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
The context is entirely related to distribution. Yes, if I never
distribute modified GPLed code, I have
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Either the choice of venue clause is invalid and ignored, or it's an
imposition on whoever has the most trouble travelling!
I think there are many more possible cases than that. For example,
since there is no signed and witnessed document, the relevance of
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
covers. If you can't even use it in those kinds of situations, then
you don't
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
technical awkwardnesses.
Patch clauses are not a minor technical awkwardnesses; they are a major,
onerous hurdle to
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
Branden
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
would say Get that program out!)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You'd be going against Debian policy, then.
In what sense? We've done this
On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Distribution is no more of interest to the original developer than
modification. If I'm distributing to you, what business of the
developer's is it?
On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] For almost every license discussion
on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
does.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't have the tools
for analysing licences without
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
would say Get that program out!)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You'd be going against Debian policy,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
certain license provisions will result in bad things happening to the
dissident if he complies with them. I am
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The test itself, though, remains clear: Any requirement for sending
source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the
modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyond
giving source to those who receive a copy of the
On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
distributed modifications.
Why do we believe in one of these but not the other?
The second
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why is You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries
not equally objectionable from this point of view?
That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
you may distribute source, or
Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
The MIT/X11 license, the new BSD license, the Sleepycat license, and
the GPL are all Free documentation licenses. Using the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference
to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
I just explained to you how it makes a difference, as did several
others. The
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
upstream.
Why does that result in one being a fee and the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
original
recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
something that
I put effort into without
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] For almost every license discussion
on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
does.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't have the tools
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
distributed modifications.
Why do we believe in one of these
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
certain license provisions will result in bad things happening to the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
covers. If you can't even use
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why is You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries
not equally objectionable from this point of view?
That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
We accept this as free for
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
original
recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
modification falls within this. Distribution, on the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
That's necessary for the recipient to have Freedom with respect to the
software -- otherwise he can't modify it to suit his purposes.
We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
upstream.
Why
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The test itself, though, remains clear: Any requirement for sending
source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the
modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyond
giving
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch
clauses, somebody might read it as
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
contains a clause
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely it's not the license that restricts the activities of the
dissident, it's the local authorities? If my government decrees that
anyone producing works that oblige source to be distributed with
binaries will
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively
guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the
DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR
and you convince the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the Open Use logo; I'm not going
to worry about the other one).
Copyright license:
You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of this
logo.
Good idea to make distribute modified versions explicit, but
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I received the
software. The author used a license which gets him a
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point:
Which DFSG point?
3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived
works, and must allow them to be
Hello
Below you will find a copy a mail that I just got from the main MySQL licence
guy. I had a quick glance at the diff and it looks ok but I would sleep better
if you acknowledge this, too.
Background: Basically MySQL changed it's library licence to something
incompatible with the LGPL but
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the Open Use logo; I'm not
going to worry about the other one).
Copyright license:
You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of
this logo.
Good idea to make distribute
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Nathaneal Nerode writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
*nobody* agreed with,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
directly to people
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
technical awkwardnesses.
Patch clauses are not a
Hello,
two months back, I sent a mail to the main middleman author (CC'ed to
this list) because middleman software license (GPL) conflicts with
OpenSSL (Apache-style) [1], and so middleman can't be accepted into
Debian. I asked him if he could add an exception to the GPL which allows
linking with
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 15:23, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
technical
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
not be free.
Really? Wow. That's insane.
Merely internally consistent. A requirement
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Cédric Delfosse wrote:
Somebody pointed me that maybe I should remove all OpenSSL related
code from the orig tarball. So, do you think this must be done ?
I'm not sure if that's ever been done for other packages missing an
OpenSSL exception that we don't link with OpenSSL.
[Personally, I think all of our tests should be explicitly tied to some
practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated
situations arise.]
This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right
to criticize the author, sue third parties,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:57:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Dictator Test goes well beyond DFSG. DFSG clause 1 merely says
that there is no fee or payment for the software. Nothing in DFSG says
that the license must make no requirements
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT
IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*?
Because it is actually taking away rights.
Still circular. How does this violate DFSG?
I think you are talking about
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
posted mailed
Please don't do that; I'm on the list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
and that's what a
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to
On 2004-07-15 13:19:07 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Find some arguments that
don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
than just handwave madly to convince me about the fee one) and I'll
listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth
Let's consider a program, released under a MIT/X11 license and linked
with OpenSSL. Some GPL'ed plugins (which are dlopen'ed at run time) are
distributed with the program.
Is distribution of this package a GPL violation?
The plugins are actually a modified version of standalone applications,
so
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:08:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
So why is You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries
not equally objectionable from this point of view?
That is simply a restriction on the
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:02:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
certain license provisions will result in bad
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
