I thought I'd take a different tack for a minute and write about
things that Raul and I (and other current debian-legal participants)
seem to agree on about the GPL, and seem to think (though most of us
are not lawyers) are well founded in law.
1. GPL release is not release into the public
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream may have died, and if you can't
distribute
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
On 5/23/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
at the time that I picked Perl and 1-2-3 as examples. But perhaps we
should regroup and identify the things we agree on (see separate
thread) and the extent to which other gaps have narrowed.
I'll need to think about that some, but I
Wish you could be better?
http://www.terima.net/ss/
No more penis enlarge ripoffs!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi.
As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for
listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal
at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
Shortly after creation this stalled however as nobody created
summaries anymore, probably because for many discussions it
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 03:47:05PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
As some of you might know some time ago I created a web page for
listing information about licenses discussed by debian-legal
at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
Comments, objections?
Maybe it is sufficient to refer to
Little magic. Perfect weekends.
http://colonials.healthsolutins.info/?ImagenxtvuyPalestinianzvtspecial
We offer a fast-track repeat prescription service
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again
until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the
work of debian-legal.
Seconded.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
it non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:04:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, the QPL (with no additional permission and a choice of venue)
is *not* DFSG-free (many long discussions were hold on debian-legal last
summer, IIRC).
This is just bullshit. A few people thinking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, any trademark license would permit us to use their
trademark, which we could not do otherwise.
This is a misunderstanding of trademark.
It is always legal to describe the driver as being a driver by author
intended for use with trademark, because that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties.
Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us.
Well, no; some such restrictions are acceptable. We accept the required NO
Frank Lichtenfeld wrote:
Since this hasn't really worked out I propose to delete this stuff again
until someone comes up with a better idea how to better present the
work of debian-legal.
It would really, really, really help if things like the currently-unofficial
debian-legal FAQ, some of the
On 5/23/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll need to think about that some, but I think there are some obvious
points
you missed. (For example, that contract law can and will be used in
resolving ownership issues in
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Shortly after creation this stalled however as nobody created
summaries anymore, probably because for many discussions it proved
to be difficult if not imopossible to summarise many of the discussions
without either reproducing the entire discussion or to have an
18 matches
Mail list logo
