On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Branden Robinson:
In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
To me it seems potentially useful to release licensees from those
requirements.
I agree, but at the same time, Branden explicitly forbids to
re-introduce these requirements, creating the GPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:50:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, I used to think that myself, until Steve Langasek and Henning Makholm
argued me to exhaustion. :)
Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of
the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:16:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
No response yet to my reasonable thread, i wonder if it was the good way to
go finally.
I'll speak up and say that your new thread appears to be fairly inclusive of
several points of concern in the QPL.
I imagine that nobody has
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to this.
Let's quote the whole of section 6).
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Err, have you read the GPL licence recently ? If it is not specifically into
every detail, i dont' know what is. There is specific text about binding and
such, and it makes explicit mentions of distribution of a work
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
chances of remaining
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Also, in any sane legal
system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence,
even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they
get.
In any sane legal system, the judge is going
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding
on
all parts about this clause in
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Also, in any sane legal
system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the
licence,
even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:16:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Also, in any sane legal
system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the
On 2004-07-20 10:15:11 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
honored, practically speaking?
I believe it should, if that mention of his name was
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all,
you lose
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more fundamental basis, abitrary termination clauses are odious and
offensive to freedom because we are not free if we are just waiting for the
hammer to fall. One of things you give up when you decide to share your
work with the FLOSS community is
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first reproach.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040720 04:06]:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
How much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
nothing if you give
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040720 13:54]:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China
Florian Weimer wrote:
How? As MJ said, it's clearly practical to remove the author's
name in places where it would nevertheless be a grievous
restriction.
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
Branden Robinson writes:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm certainly not clear that the new SC gives any leeway to use tests
that don't spring directly from the DFSG.
Put that way, it doesn't give us any leeway to use tests at all.
In any event, I laid out
Don Armstrong writes:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's no consistent and coherent argument going on, other than a
sort of fuzzy We think it's not free, and we can sort of point at
these two things and handwave and say they cover them.
DFSG 5 No Discrimination Against
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This word discriminate - I don't think it means what you think it
means. All users of the software are given the same license. The
license itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say no
people on a desert island may
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or
QPL.
That only comes automatically
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
I do. More to the point,
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never thought hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
this to Iran. Instead, the
qwhzvotrhlmltvfzybfytcllamoveacjwuuccaazxryzhlnejybqazsdgfrescoes
Need a little spice in your life? having problems with your male parts?
Wana go for days? Keep the wife at home happy. Be happy.
I keep it hard here www.hardandbetter.com
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never thought hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
this to Iran. Instead, the terms
My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well.
Now I look again at QPL 6:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
compilers, and
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
files :
- one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
compiler, typing system et al
- another set represents the standards library, stubs system (
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This word discriminate - I don't think it means what you think it
means. All users of the software are given the same license. The
license itself does not
While a work may be in the public domain in the U.S., it may be under
copyright elsewhere. So, e.g., while works by the U.S. government may be
public domain in the U.S., they may remain under copyright in other
countries.
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
-- not the parts in the library linked in, but
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current
interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are
copyright-controlled in
The international copyright treaties, if I am not mistaken, only
grant copyrights to works which are capable of being subject to
copyright in their 'home countries'.
It's not that simple. The US, for one, recognizes copyrights on
works under copyright under US law that aren't in copyright
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dom Lachowicz
Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com
Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
I'm not sure if this is the reason or not, but please
see:
[answerinng only the off-topic parts, for clarification from the release
team:]
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
--- Andy Korvemaker wrote:
I was checking whether a new version of Abiword was
available in
Unstable and decided to see what was holding the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
files :
- one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
compiler, typing system
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
-- not the parts in
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of
any license that actually explicitly said may not be used for bioweapons
research, clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less
direct arguments tend to reduce to
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:40:57AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Finally, the spirit of the QPL, as from their annotated license[1] appears to
be very much in favor of Free software. Section 6c's annotation states:
This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:38:33PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:23:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It's that last bit which is non-free. If they did something like the
FSF, and asked for copyright assignment, that would be free.
If they did something
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG
for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of
explicit
Don Armstrong writes:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
All users of the software are given the same license. The license
itself does not discriminate against them; it does not say no
people on a desert island may use this or similar.
I think you're limiting it to explicit
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
unenforcable?
Probably, but you're still
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Matthew Palmer writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even
Matthew Palmer writes:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
general public (which we do).
The QPL doesn't
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:06:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
general
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Matthew Palmer writes:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:19:51AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I think that this issue might be enough to get a change or two to the DFSG
made. Compelled unrelated distribution and compelling the grant of a
separate licence are both issues that I think need specific mention. The
latter can
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:59, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
it danced around,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Don Armstrong writes:
I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I feel
it should apply to effective discrimination as well.
So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
57 matches
Mail list logo
