DFSG as Licence?
Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. Thanks and Nice Weekend Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. It doesn't interfere with my reasons for releasing it in the first place, and it lets any free software project use it, without any concerns about being GPL compatible. All the fuss about open source licenses being incompatible is, IMHO, contradictory to the spirit of free software, and spending time on such issues is counter-productive. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is becoming a 'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not allowed to grab a GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the modified binaries only. In that case GPL force you to publish the your source modifications, which is perfectly in the spirit of free software ... e.g. what is give is what you get. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG as Licence?
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello *, Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know what to do. Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. Question: Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok, but I have complains against the new one. If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the or later option, if that does what you want. The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody is under any obligation to please them. Personally, I'm allergic to more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff under the MIT license. It gives a little more permission than the GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial application. GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is becoming a 'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not OK, bad choice of words. I don't much care if someone uses my code in a proprietary application either. allowed to grab a GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the modified binaries only. In that case GPL force you to publish the your source modifications, which is perfectly in the spirit of free software ... e.g. what is give is what you get. What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses being deemed incompatible with each other. Examples are the GPL, the OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License. I find it hard to believe that most authors who choose to release under the GPL do so in order to prevent their code being used in a program released under the OSL. Neither of these two licenses (GPL and OSL) allows for proprieterization of code. However, I see it as a loss to the free software world as a whole, that the open source code is divided into several islands, between which no code sharing is allowed. This leads to time and efforts being wasted in reimplementing perfectly good code, only because the existing version has slightly different terms of use and distribution. How many cases of Foo is under GPL, Foo uses libcurl, libcurl can be linked with OpenSSL, hence Foo is non-distributable have been discussed on this list? I have no figures, but it is a recurring topic. Does anyone seriously believe that the authors of Foo intentionally created those situation? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
* Francesco Poli: I mean: may I be an anonymous Contributor? Being forced to disclose my own real identity is a significant restriction: it would render software under the CPL non-free (because it's a fee, see DFSG#1). On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM CPL v1
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the other hand, being able to identify all contributors is vital for reviewing the copyright status of a program, should there be any doubt or copyright infringement claims. Programs with an unclear copyright situation cannot be considered free, IMHO. I disagree, at the extreme. If it's *provably* so unclear that no-one can enforce a copyright over it, then it's effectively in the public domain and so free. However, you are far more likely to hit 'lawyerbomb' than 'free' and it's better to try to clarify. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Delivery reports about your e-mail
Your message has been automatically forwarded to my new address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please update your addressbooks and lists to reflect this new address. Old Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
