Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

2009-12-16 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:20:45 +0200 anatoly techtonik wrote: Hello, Hello... Following recent Python policy updates I wonder if GPL is really the license of choice for software documentation in Debian? IMHO, yes it is and it should be, really! The GPL is the best choice, whenever a

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write his format, however. A

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Thu Dec 17 00:06, Andrew Dalke wrote: The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split off the CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the rest of the JUMBO code will clarified to be Apache 2.0, the CML developers are going through all their code to check

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: I assume, then, that it can function without that non-free file? Yes. Either it provides validation capabilities they don't need, or they have some hand-written code to deal with the parts that were automated because of having the schema

Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

2009-12-16 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... CLOSED derivative works. If it's

Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision

2009-12-16 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Although the GNU project disagrees again with your

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Dalke wrote: On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind. [...] Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

2009-12-16 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote: This part followed if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it. Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the book linked, but elsewhere in the book read. Indeed. BTW, I should have interpreted the original phrase as read the