Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
version is what the original author would use to make a modification
to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
lossless
generated is about as relevant as it gets, short of a statement
by the author on the subject.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result
is a good metric, but not the be-all and end-all
of whether a work provides sufficient freedom.
I'm afraid I simply disagree here. I'm not willing to go to an author
and say If you write in machine code your work can never be Free.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think with these examples you're getting away from the preferred
form for making modifications definition of source.
Yes, I'm accepting or as close as is physically possible. Note
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
reasonably in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
purposes
then only on a case-by-case basis with lots of discussion.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a clarification letter to address those?
I'll leave that to those more skilled in legalese than myself.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
to use excerpts from your
documentation as context help, or something like that. If the licenses
are incompatible that may not be possible -- at least not without
jumping some legal hoops.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
of shipping the firmware as a separate data
file, for example, would make it less likely that you get an unpleasant
surprise down the road. That way it would more clearly be mere
aggregation because your program could theoretically work with some
other (as yet unwritten) firmware blob.
--
Jeremy
, I couldn't agree more.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
out to be
accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far that deal with this
problem (if it is a problem) give up too much freedom in exchange. At
least, IMHO.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
about how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out
to be accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far
only disagree with them if we have to for the sake of
Debian -- in which case we're probably in trouble and should hire a
lawyer ASAP.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
that
this issue hasn't really been resolved yet, and until it has been it's
premature to worry about compromises and guidelines and such.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
is including the emacs docs
cuz we need it different from including netscape back whene there
weren't any free alternatives?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
docs don't fall into this category of less
freedom required, so they should be modifiable. And they shouldn't be
tied to non-modifiable stuff.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is what non-free is for, right? How is including the emacs
docs cuz we need it different from including netscape back whene
there weren't any free alternatives?
The emacs docs are ... docs. Netscape is/was, or at least
, and that they're ok. I'd be disapointed if that were the
decision, but at least people would know what to expect.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
accordingly.
Thanks for your time in reading this, and I appreciate as well that
you sought public feedback on the FDL. I hope this note will be of
some use to you.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
there's Xemacs as well -- I assume many/most elisp files can be used
with both?) It seems, at the least, unclear whether the elisp files
are derived from emacs.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
the nasty
stuff out But I guess that's superfluous now. ;)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
But, of course, IANAL, and IANADD (Debian Developer).
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
up with a better way to make
the restriction, I'm not going to say we should keep it out of Debian.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally.
Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest
that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around
into the license, I see no issue with its
DFSG-freeness. This states your intention (that a reference to 'foo'
always reference the same thing) but creates an explicit (in the
license) loophole in form of the filename remapping facility.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E
and important) and a legal
requirement.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
, IANAL.
I can certainly imagine a case where this might be a relevant
question. Imagine an exhibit of WinXP, for example, where the machine
code is translated, command by command, into english sentences and
listed out in very small type.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F
the document), why should that
be considered Free?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
to the
conversation. I think it's pretty clear that harmonization between
the OSD and the DFSG in not only not going to work, it would be
counter-productive.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
, and say
that if the recipient can't reasonably be expected to have the key (or
whatever word you want to use) it must be provided.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
that predicting the future is a losing game no matter how you play it.
IANAL, so I'm happy to be educated if this isn't workable for some
reason.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
Perhaps so
.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about my list of software that I am a user of? The software my
dentist uses to track patient records? The software the University
uses to track my grades? The software that Congress uses to track
) for these users,
* And do all this without increasing the burden on the distributor
(or software provider) beyond that which the GPL already places
(e.g., passes the dissident test, no restrictions on modification,
etc).
If all of this could be done, would the license be DFSG free?
--
Jeremy
using the software locally, or amongst a few friends, the author can't
demonstrate any such awareness; if you provide a subscription service
to the public, one of your subscribers can mail the author and tell him
about it though.
But the author may find out.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second
group
.)
The argument of the folks that want to close the ASP loophole is that
this category will increase in the future, possibly even to eclipse
other categories. And I think that's a question about which
debian-legal ought to be agnostic.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Rather
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way,
I should be able to decide who should get access and who should
not. And that list need not include the author.
Uh
of when evaluating an
attempt to distinguish users from non-users. If a potential user is
barred from actual use of the software, he's not actually using the
software.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its root
to them, but that's iffy. But there are certainly
uses to which you could put the google software, if you had the
source.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
commands).
On the other hand, it seems to include Apache, which I, at least,
don't think should be included.
I'll have to think about this a bit.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
part of Free
Software.
Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and
BarInterface.
I agree that there are two cases under discussion, but I think both
are important and both are loopholes.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins hasn't explained well enough for me why in that
future we would be unable to make the kinds of free software we have
now.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit for
you.
Imagine a world
), and it's part of
exchange.
For anyone who was interested.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins said:
Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the
ASP nightmare.
How is this different (from a licensing perspective) from a
publicly-accessible shell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be
changed
what I
mean.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
to
provide source in addition to binaries on a web page (or on CD, or
whatever).
For purposes of the dissident test, dissidents could exchange floppies
with patches on them occasionally.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030317 17:31]:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
just individuals).
[...]
My favorite is the first, which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and,
IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
BSD-style
a few k of
compressed patch files available for users of the ASP service to
download?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030318 16:54]:
Fine, in this hypothetical if he's unable to provide the source to
folks in the US, the license would not allow him to provide the
service to folks in the US. Exactly analogous to someone trying
bad they
should be able to get it.
Something doesn't parse there, so I'm assuming I'm misunderstanding
you.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
there will be a GPL implementation of latex
with its own set of files that are interoperable with standard latex.
Perhaps not intended to be used with standard latex, but they could
be.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
terminal emulation program (for example).
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
likely since a package file is actually rewriting
the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that
the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an
exception allowing linking with LPPL stuff.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that
you are not familar
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have
read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of
contact with LaTeX
it in a
commons. But I don't see any reason for Debian to distribute these
folks' statements (fictional, rants, or otherwise) unless in some sort
of (semi-)official way Debian actually supports or endorses the
statement.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type
-software, do you know how the law
you're referring to makes this distinction? Where would fonts,
javascript embedded in html, latex source, postscript, etc, fit into
this scheme?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
in their
proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
Otherwise, it's free, afaict.
This is a question, of course, about the working of the
non-discrimination guideline.
Not really -- it's about whether you have the right to modify.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E
Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
Spot on. Exactly the point.
Ok. It's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free
because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in
their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free because
to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in their
proprietary stuff.
Uh, no, that's
group be able to relicense your code
however they like.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please
is DFSG free?
I'm not sure that's
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
DFSG-free means that it can be included in Debian, maintained by our
maintainers and used by our users.
Now you're being silly. Surely
was evidently wrong, and as IANADD, I don't really have any say in the
matter anyway.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
know that you were out there, fighting for free software, and refusing
to compromise. That's gone now, however this issue works out.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
he did before. Not that I'm saying that this is a
new agenda on his part or anything, but the licensing of documentation
has become a bigger issue than it once was.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
are a compromise with freedom, and that when
more people than just the FSF are adding invariant sections to
documents the interests of Free Software will be damaged.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
than helpful to society.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
the inherent fuzziness of the issue
faithfully, and doesn't try to answer questions that are very, very
hard to answer in the abstract but generally trivial under specific
circumstances.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
to be decided on a situational basis; that's not a reason to say
that gifs can't be copyleft unless they have accompanying source.
I admit to being a bit confused about the positions everyone's taking
in this thread, though, so I may not be responding precisely to your
point.
--
Jeremy Hankins
, and it
isn't reasonable to expect everyone to agree on exactly where that
line falls, especially in the abstract. That's why we have judges,
after all.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
license). The GPL
is particularly common in dual licenses because it allows the code to
link with the large number of GPL code out there, or to be pulled into
GPL works.
(I'm not sure where you want to go with the bit about dual GNU
GPL/Artistic or dual GNU GPL/QPL.)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED
. Imagine having to
include a pickle in a cvs upload!
Though I'm not sure exactly what pickle-passing clause you're
referring to since there were a couple discussed, I think the above is
as closely analogous to the GFDL as you can get with a pickle. ;)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
-term problems between two organizations with so much in
common.
(Speaking only for myself, of course.)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here is that (without going into the details)
communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down.
Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of
the FSF and so
*
worse than adding decss to a player, but is there legal or factual
basis for that? A circumvention device is a circumvention device;
that's the whole point with this law.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
folks here were very much against the Affero GPL, and I
don't know if this answers their problems with it.
Note: I haven't looked over the rest of the APSL either. Also, IANAL,
IANADD. ;)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
about this myself, but cautiously willing to give
folks the benefit of the doubt.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
available.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
What are you trying to say here?
* That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
mail-order typesetting scenario?
Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on
the user than delivery
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
In the list you referenced
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be through
electronic communication to qualify:
Ok, though this is an arbitrary distinction, and I'd argue that something
that restricts e-mail communication
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic. If you
type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic
(well, non-digital) element: you.
Ok, so as long as someone presses a button
far from conclusive, it's worth noting that RMS clearly
doesn't think the APSL runs afoul of freedom 0.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to
include restrictions on performance.
This is interesting, and AFAIK the first license Debian has
considered which makes such a claim
be tricky and I don't think it's necessary for the DFSG.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 13:55, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You must obtain the recipient's agreement that any such Additional
Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify,
defend and hold Apple and every Contributor
).
* If you ignore the (significant!) difficulty of assigning values to
characteristics, since people will no doubt disagree.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
that issue with you off list, but
unless you value freedom in something approaching the way the rest of
us here do, there's no point to discussing this on-list.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
to do so, as Wouter said. Of
course, the purchaser would also need to want to use the GPL for the new
license
You buy control. You give freedom. It may seem like a detail, but I
think it's a telling one.
Of course, I'm no longer clear how this relates to the discussion.
--
Jeremy Hankins
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
