On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
On matters of style, swim with the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Only when you're playing the game of trying to push the definition of
user as far as you can push it. And that's a perfectly legitimate
and good thing to do when you're discussing a license text, but in
doing so you shouldn't forget
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
Why is this different
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want to be able
to do the same for my customers. Ought that customer to be able to get
the source code? You
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, can it be
used
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 05:01, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Richard Braakman wrotes:
Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would
go like this:
1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
2. The author is
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
The basic reason here
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:24, Richard Braakman wrote:
My rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where
the technically ideal solution is blocked by software licensing, then
you're not dealing with free software. This is my version of freedom 0.
(You could always get
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
without copyright law.
It only makes it more
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
to make GFDL docs
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution
, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current
interpretation of Fair Use applies to cases where there is no
copying taking place.
I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual
Fair Use analysis in another message
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:30, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say, every likelihood, I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
app, although not impossible. Still, it seems
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source
Whoa, hold on. Your analysis is using a completely different set of
principles than Henning Makholm's. For you to analyze my cases
according to your principles instead of Makholm's, is to switch
standards on me mid-stream. I am currently in another few threads with
you about your principles for
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:59, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
algorithms work. You can incorporate it into other
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about
I unfortunately no longer have time to read and comment on the various
AGPL threads (well over 500 messages so far). If you do have
suggestions for how to improve the license text, or otherwise ensure
that users of software can get the source code even if they use the
software over a network,
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 12:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the
PHPNuke thread.
I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even
suggestion,
? The link [12] leads to some list archive where David
Turner is quoted as saying
The Slashdot article misparaphrased me. The submitter has agreed that
he misunderstood me, and the whole thing has been cleared up with the
Apache people. So, although I'll be sending messages like this for
the rest
If you want to CC licensing@ from a thread in (say) debian-legal, here's
what to do:
1. Mail only licensing@
2. Take the autoreply it gives you, and extract the [gnu.org #] bit
from the subject.
3. Put that bit in the subject of all mails CC'd to licensing@
This will prevent the creation of
assuming you meant the copyright assignment statement, and
certainly, I will clarify. According to David Turner, IIRC, it requires
written paperwork for copyright assignment. Debian, though, usually
accepts emails as well, but not licenses that have default assignments.
This was a big deal
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
