Daniel Carrera wrote:
Alright guys,
Here's the lates (and hopefully final) draft of the copyright section:
This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in
the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the
terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or
Michael Below wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a
derived
work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived work of
the
firmware. The fact that they are individually packaged in the same elf
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Question: I thought that the or later was also standard for GPL
software. Isn't it?
I believe so, it's customary (by no means mandatory tough). With the
honorable exception of the Linux kernel, among others, that are GPLv2 only.
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:24:29AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to
source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an executable
Sven, the comments I will make here are more or less a compilation of
many things I have said before on d-l and various other places on the
Net.
Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
I write this to obtain clarification of the linux kernel firmware
situation,
since it is quite similar to the firmware-flash
Michael Below wrote:
Hm. So the LGPL is completely useless in practice?
Don't tell RMS, but in my analysis I believe it's safe to link a
non-derivative work with a GPL'd library. Especially if you are
dynamic-linking. But even otherwise.
The problem is that only after Abstraction, Filtration
Michael Poole wrote:
Which FAQ question besides this one (with anchor #IfLibraryIsGPL) deals
with programs that use a GPLed library?
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that
mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes,
because the program as it is
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
I think. But if you can take out his code (and any other that's
GPLv2 only),
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
You're correct in that anything that's a derivative work of any
GPLv2 code also cannot be distributed under GPLv3 or later. But
it's going to be very interesting to figure out what code is
a derivative work of what.
Anyway, this seems rather theoretical.
Arnoud
Yeah,
Matthew Palmer wrote:
That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
latter has a documented API and the former only communicates with
it through that API, I'd probably say no. Even more so if that
plugin could
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:22:12AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
latter has a documented API and the former only
Raul Miller wrote:
Even assuming that this considered has some legal basis, this rule utterly misses the point. You have a decent heuristic there, but it's just a heuristic -- it doesn't mean anything legally.
Yes and no. Every legal issue is judged (by an attorney, before be
definitively
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Trying to explain more: my myfile.c is not a derivative work on
errno.h,
No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
My understanding is that, in practice, myfile.c could infringe as well,
if the only reasonable way to use it is by creating a
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
on the American notion of fair use is non-free, because in the UK
that means Non-commercial use only.
Just to be clear: fair use
Henning Makholm wrote:
Your claim was: Bits in .h files are not copyrightable.
Troll editing. My claim was: *Basically*, bits in .h files are not
copyrightable. Which I now solemnly amend to The kind of bits you
normally (99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based
projects, and
doug jensen wrote:
I cannot see anything indicating that the Creative Commons
trademark paragraph is not part of the license, when looking at it in
a text browser[1]. In a graphical browser the entire section quoted
above has a box around it. My first thought was that that section was
being
Henning Makholm wrote:
If it is wrong to begin with, then it is also basically wrong.
It seems that my bad English got me: I used the word basically in the
same sense that its cognate can be used in Portuguese, in the
basic/normal cases I apologize for the confusion.
Which I now solemnly
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Troll editing. My claim was: *Basically*, bits in .h files are not copyrightable. Which I now solemnly amend to The kind of bits you normally (99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based projects
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. That said plugin, when in its compiled form, if it contains at
all any inlined functions or macros from the GPL'd
plugin-interfaces.h file, is merely a volume of storage or
distribution in accordance to the disposition
David Moreno Garza wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently packaging revolution[1] (a ruby library for interacting
with evolution's data-server) and I'd like to ask here if its license,
since the author uses an employer-based one, would be entirely free
(DFSG compatible), because I don't want to misunderstand
Raul Miller wrote:
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious
copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass
into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing
this in order to solve
David Schwartz wrote:
Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that
the openfirmware package was were the firmware came from.
The person obviously made a lot of statements without
bothering checking out the real source. Well it didn't come
from there, I got it from Alteon under a
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
fine.
Then I would
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
from the copyright holder saying this, to me, is the
preferred form for modification
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
Humberto Massa wrote:
First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
possible.
From section 3 of the GNU GPL
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm
wrote:
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria
above others in importance. If you want this kind of
distinction, I think a less discriminatory way would be to
Francesco Poli wrote:
The one in version 4 seems viable:
| You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,
|or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
|measures that prevent the recipient from exercising the
|rights granted to them by section 8a and section 3 of
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
place. See,
Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either a derived
work or mere aggregation, and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.
try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere
aggregation. I
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright
law is not phrased in terms of derived - or that have
several native words which are given different explicit
meaning by the local law but would all need
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you buy a
W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
image of your installation, under the fair use rights
(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could
transfer
David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was
to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0300, Humberto Massa
wrote:
Then all the people who think that creating a binary
kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence
can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
up with them.
I took. Google my
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your
kernel
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Martin Samuelsson wrote:
(Resending this since my Cc to debial-legal got lost the first time)
A fair while ago I consulted debian-legal on the public domain license
and got the polite reply from Glenn Maynard stating that problems
might exist with it not disclaiming warranty.
Further discussion
David Schwartz wrote:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be
linked together is not protected by copyright:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By your argumentation, it doesn't seem that this is a decision the
author of the library (or kernel, or whatever) gets to make, but
rather something which is inherent in what's been created; they can
offer their own opinion on what constitutes an application's use of
the
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
So, there it goes.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase derived work is legalese for
code dependancy or something. I'm sure the GPL
Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, it tries to define work based on the Program in terms
of derivative work under copyright law, and then incorrectly
paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that derivative work and work based on
the Program are spelled differently. What's not
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase,
Jakob Bohm wrote:
Sorry, I misspoke; contracts are construed against the offeror, not
against the drafter, when there's a distinction. The offeror had the
option of proposing language as explicit as he or she chose, so
ambiguities are as a matter of law construed against his or her
interests.
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/8/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
to be granted separate
Raul Miller wrote:
And, if you allow the full definition of a work based on the Program
from section 0 of the GPL to apply, it's clear that when these
collective works are being protected as intellectual creations that
you're talking about a work based on the Program and so can
be granted license
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Now if you were Linus, would you trust the FSF to rewrite the license
on your work? Before you answer, remember that GCC is the only
compiler which doesn't choke on the Linux kernel (last time I
checked).
Actually, Intel's ICC compiles the linux kernel.
IANAL, TINLA,
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
When I try to reconcile early case law -- just from the US circuit
courts -- on the copies, derivative works, collections, and dungheaps
made during run-time, and which routine uses are infringing and which
aren't, the little engine in my non-lawyer head threatens to
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected
by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our
Raul Miller wrote:
However, on the flip side -- if binaries are the same work as the sources under the eyes of the law, then you can't construct any licenses which treat sources differently from binaries. They're the same. Anyone who has the right to distribute binaries also has the right to
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their
sources, in the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a brocardo (legal axiom) in our doctrine: He who can
do more, can do less (horrid translation to quem pode mais,
pode menos [Quién puede más
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is your mistake: it's not the pages that carry protection, it's
the words and illustrations on the pages (as in abstract,
intelectual entities) that carry protection.
I thought copyright was protection for creative
Raul Miller wrote:
It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
understood in terms of contract law.
(...)
However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
I don't know and I won't try to figure out if your
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set
of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I
don't think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**)
{
puts(Hi);
return 0;
}
What
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative
Raul Miller wrote:
The working hello_world program is a collection.
This program (hello_world) taken in isolation will not perform.
This is irrelevant. Its creative status independs of its performance.
You are saying that hello_world in isolation will not perform. Neither
will the debian
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Note that your argument contains correct logic but incorrect facts.
libsnmp is more or less BSD licensed (
http://www.net-snmp.org/about/license.html ). It is Quagga that is
GPL'ed. Substitute, say, a GPL'ed HTTP client library in place of
libsnmp, and it's all good.
Branden Robinson wrote:
I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a
different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software
projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual
parts of the license; I know examples where those have been
Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to join
yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, so I will
take the liberty to ask my question here.
You are right, your questions are better asked in debian-legal, with a
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
David Gourdelier wrote:
Hi list,
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently,
David Gourdelier wrote:
I would like to know if crypt lib licence would allow it for being
included in Debian as a Debian package. The licence is available at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib/download.html
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
Apparently, the license
So it means there is no legal problems for a cryptlib package ? My
wondering was more about this statement and the link with points 5 and 6 of the Debian social contract:
If you're unable to comply with the above license then the following,
alternate usage conditions apply:
Any
Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff:
[T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make
cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG.
Huh? I see no such clauses[1], unless you're
Branden Robinson:
I think we need to start saying just MIT or MIT/old X11; we can't
really say MIT/X11 any more.
Eh? Why can't we? What's the new MIT/X11 license?
I think he meant X11 (the new, problematic one) does not equals MIT or
2-clause BSD anymore; MIT/X11 seems to imply
Birzan George Cristian wrote:
Now, my questions for you are:
1) Is nmap's licence GPL, or by adding that mention, they created a new
licence?
One: nmap's license is GPL. the mention you talked about is just a
warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is
terminated, in
selussos wrote:
on the US copyright law's fair use contradicting your licence terms
in a way that makes it a free software licence. I ask that you
familiarise yourself with this basic problem of copyright and free
software. Software that is free only for US residents isn't free
software (or
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Hi.
.. stuff ...
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It
states
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
number is not necessary.
I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose, but,
looking at the edited summary below this, I
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is a serious question: how does (DFSG 3) tacked on to the end
of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to
Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed the
First of all, great job.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm going to continue to label this a draft, since this includes a
couple of new changes. But I think everything here is fairly well
accepted.
yay. skip
7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
And possibly,
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going
Diego Biurrun wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
I wouldn't say that is really supported by the letter of the
license. The license states the date of any change, not the
first and last with a pointer. You could point to existing
practice, but not to the license.
In general, I think that
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It seems rather clear that those source files are just machine
code for the device firmware, and as such, are not the prefered
form for modification.
Agreed. So the files are not DFSG-free.
This is not clear to me, for reasons
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If the binary blob was really the source file, then it's fine. For
these so-called GPLed binaries, we should ask the copyright
holders if they were *really* written as binary blobs. If they say
yes, let's believe them. If they say no, then the binaries are
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'm assuming that the opinion of the copyright holder, being the
licensor, is governing here. If the copyright holder comes out and
says explicitly, Yes, it really *is* the preferred form for
modification, then we have no problem. If they say, no, it
isn't, then we
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
?! That's the part I have difficulty understanding. As I have
said here before, there is no mistake in things unsaid... the
code is there, the copyright in in the top of the file, the
license is there *saying* to you it's GPL licensed, the origin
Replying to oneself is something terrible, but I re-read this stuff a
zillion times and I think I wasn't clear.
Humberto Massa wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
cut
the pf4m. It's only the opposite if the copyright holder (Qlogic,
IBM, whoever) says no, we have a XX
Yay! Aye, mplayer in debian, please, but...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* the upstream tar.bz cannot be distributed by Debian, since it contains
CSS code; so I am repackaging it
at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
--
br,M
Oh, man, it seems that I *must* repeat myself one more time, at least
to see if I'm not in everyone's killfile :-)
@ 30/03/2004 11:19 : wrote Pavel Machek :
Hi!
Hi!
#include hallo.h * David Schwartz [Thu, Mar 25 2004,
04:41:23PM]:
IMHO code that can be compiled would probably be the
@ 30/03/2004 14:09 : wrote Henning Makholm :
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to modify the fw[], at least *legally* is MHO that any
recipient/redistributor of the file _can_ and _must_ consider the file
in *that* format as the preferred form for modification (pf4m
@ 30/03/2004 22:48 : wrote Walter Landry :
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
The legal status of CSS is still under active litigation. Debian just
has to be conservative until it has resolved itself.
I don't know. What
@ 01/04/2004 11:57 : wrote Rick_Thomas :
In that case, the NetBSD folks may already have the information (and
appropriate releases) that we need to re-implement the boot sector for
miboot. It's worth pursuing!
AFAIK (and I googled around) NetBSD boots from a MacOS program called
Booter.
@ 03/04/2004 08:40 : wrote J.D. Hood :
(If we are distributing it then it isn't firmware. I'll call
it 'peripheral software' until someone suggests a better term.)
There are differing views on two different questions:
Q1: Is binary peripheral software DFSG-free or not?
Q2: What do we do about
@ 04/04/2004 03:57 : wrote Nathanael Nerode :
Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these
changes
It is likely that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a
Free
quite possible? I'm not sure about likely.
license in the sense of the DFSG. However, since
@ 05/04/2004 20:30 : wrote Henning Makholm :
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified
sources.
If nothing is said about it, then it is not allowed.
I agree with Don Armstrong that the binary packages must be removed
from the
Fast summary?
@ 17/04/2004 16:18 : wrote Joerg Jaspert :
Written by Dan Heller. Copyright 1991, O'Reilly Associates.
This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and
is provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied.
This program is -not- in the
@ 22/04/2004 16:31 : wrote Jeremy Hankins :
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a
@ 22/04/2004 18:26 : wrote Andreas Barth :
Of course we can discriminate - like the GPL does.
Cheers,
Andi
no, no, the GPL discriminates what you do with the specific piece of
software you are redistributing or its derived works, not if you are or
not distributing other software, that is
@ 23/04/2004 08:34 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
(about DFSG#5,6)
They're supposed to prohibit this sort of license clause (all real
examples, albeit not with precise wording):
- This software may not be used in nuclear power plants.
- This software may not be used by the US government.
- This
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not
in
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo
