Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 09:50 -0500, Anthony Towns a écrit :
As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences
actually examine this one?
Yes.
At the election time, I hoped you could improve regarding communication
skills, at least enough to become a project leader.
This is very interesting: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this
Hi Anthony,
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:50:10AM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences
actually examine this one?
Yes.
What did he/she think about the following
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:56:21 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
-distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or
+distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:50:10AM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
First off, I'm going to completely ignore the FAQ as the FAQ and the
license both specifies that the FAQ does not have any legal validity.
Repeating frequently
Hi Michael,
On Friday, 19 May 2006, you wrote:
As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences
actually examine this one?
Yes.
I take it you were too busy to elaborate on this when you wrote this
email. So you will probably give us the name of this person
On Fri, 2006-19-05 at 02:24 -0700, Max Brown wrote:
This is very interesting:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
Yes it is. And thank you for proving the point I made earlier!
You may not have noticed, but that summary and general opinion on
debian-legal state that anti-DRM clauses
Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against DRM 2.0" does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) MaxEvan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
*trademark*
unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
-- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that
intellectual property right does
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its
license.
From
http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup
Termination for IP or Patent Action:
In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this
license shall
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
*trademark*
unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
-- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is
that
intellectual property right does
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software
(DFSG 9).
I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
I
Let me reply to at least some of the points raised here right now. By
the way, one of the Sun engineers was involved in packaging, and
actually wrote (with help from others) part of the license agreement
code etc. using debconf. I don't think that has any legal value (but I'm
not a legal expert),
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming
the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What did he/she think about the following clause?
Not that I'm that person (first I heard of any of this was the
announcement), but this seems like as good of a place as any to make the
point that to me is obvious but that no one else seems to be making.
Fine remark, but...
Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since
there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very fine dissertation but...
All:
Let me start by repeating the message that Simon and I gave
to you at Debconf: there is every reason for us to be friends
and working with you is very important for Sun.
Please consider:
- We consider the FAQ [2] to be an accurate representation of the intent of
this license [1] and do
Tom Marble schrieb am Freitag, den 19. Mai 2006:
All:
Let me start by repeating the message that Simon and I gave
to you at Debconf: there is every reason for us to be friends
and working with you is very important for Sun.
Please consider:
- We consider the FAQ [2] to be an accurate
Let me first preface this with a caveat and an apology: after the fact
it was pointed out that the mail I sent was needlesly inflamatory;
that was not my intention and for that I apologize. I also appreciate
the desire of Sun to work with Debian in order to create a license
that distributions can
David wrote:
Even worse is how question 8 of the FAQ contradicts section 2c of the
license since this has much graver consequences:
8. Does this license prevent me shipping any alternative technologies
in my OS distribution?
The DLJ does not restrict you from shipping any other
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
Let me start by repeating the message that Simon and I gave to you
at Debconf: there is every reason for us to be friends and working
with you is very important for Sun.
Thanks for comming to Debconf; the discussions were interesting even
if there were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Drew Parsons wrote:
Trying to read Sun's words over again, it seems to me that what Sun is
saying here is not that you can't distribute the other technologies,
but that you can't distribute them to run *with* the Sun JDK. That's
how I interpret
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
Thanks for comming to Debconf; the discussions were interesting even
if there were disagreements at times.
It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to
24 matches
Mail list logo
