as indicating that no
fee is required for the permission, not that the permission applies
only if no fee is involved.
Unless you have some reason to believe otherwise (in which case
clarification from upstream should be sought), I'd call this free.
IANADD, take with requisite grains of salt.
--
Mark
the program so that my version is not designed to interact
with users through a computer network? Can someone else then use the
above exception to modify my version under the pure GPL?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
this
functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide
this functionality.)
means.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are trying to impose use restrictions, not just
distribution restrictions.
As long as it's acknowledged to be non-free, we can probably stop using
d-l as the forum for it. This will be my last post to the list on the
topic for now. I'll reply privately of course.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
, they've likely
committed a crime. You can combat their dishonest actions as easily under
a current GPL license as you will be able to with your new non-free
license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/ !G
is true for two programs that require the same
filename for their license. How do you include both licenses in your
combination-product?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/ !G
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Stephen C. North wrote:
0) Please can you point out the ATT source code released under a
Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
discussion.
VNC (http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/) is released under the GPL.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED
?
Actually, on more thorough reading, there is nothing that gives ANY
permission to copy the artwork. It can't be distributed seperately, but
never says that it can be distributed bundled either. Can we even put it
in non-free?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ !G
the protections for
your code that you want, does it matter that it was written by someone
whose theories on bit-patterns-as-property conflict with your own?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ !G
! :)
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ !G
their
source available. Oh, wait - they do that already.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ !G
of such
tools might be in violation. In all cases, it's the tool that is
infringing the patent, not the data.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
in such a way that you can simply treat your work as
no-charge proprietary software, you can write whatever license you want,
but it's not free software, and it's not GPL-compatible.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
on the net? How about a company that rents CD
burners?
Does your answer change if any of these services charges money? Why?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
on this
(off-)topic to the list.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
infringing on your
reputation, but doesn't limit them to having a specific behavior like a
popup.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
or that I won't use them, just that they're
not free and should be treated as such.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
show yourself to be an ass.
Regardless of technical esoterica, this is how it happens - messages are
broadcast, archived by various people, and republished by some of them.
This is good and useful, and if you don't like it, please set up your own
list with whatever rules you prefer.
--
Mark Rafn
just because you change your mind about sharing
these messages with us.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
trying.
3) Accept the status quo without agreeing in principal. This would be my
hope if you cannot do #1. I recommend you avoid sending
messages to public lists in the future until the matter is resolved to
your liking.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
can let this drop. Feel free to rebut
as needed, but I don't think I'm likely to shed further light. Good luck
in all your endeavors.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, but we should make occasional exceptions.
BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute. I have a
personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't be many people
moving between the above camps.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
against people extending your
work unfreely.
3) BSD or Artistic.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
the freedom of the work. Note that use of such a license DOES
place a higher burden on the packager, as you now need to check each file
in a new version to see if the package has become non-free. With a
purely free license, you only need check that the license has not
changed.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
reasonable to require that nobody distribute modified versions and claim
they're original.
I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me that documentation or
media content is any different from software WRT desirability and
definition of freedom.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
. One of them is
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:nJ7INHUa-AAC:lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200012/msg00101.html+eemuconcept%40eemuconcept.comhl=en
Good luck!
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, we'll probably be unable to act
quickly enough to prevent sites more popular than ours
(*cough*slashdot*cough*) from distributing the content very widely if they
so choose. When the topic comes up, all this will be gleefully pointed
out to our putative claimant.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED
recommended we change it to Debian is Free Software and
some non-free non-software that supports it? Unless this change is made,
I really don't understand how anyone can argue to put non-free bits into
our free system.
Is it free? It can go into Debian. Is it not free? It can't.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
the customer from distributing the
software (also with source) as they choose.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than making a specific exception. LGPL would be my first
suggestion to them. Not required for DFSG freedom, just required for
philosophical consistency.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
-expiry license is not a pure
superset of the pre-expiry license quite problematic. It's certainly
free, but only as long as the conditions of both licenses are followed.
Unless I misunderstand how the sunset clause is expected to work, I don't
see how it benefits anyone.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
that is
non-distributable after some future date.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is required to allow us to
package/distribute Nessus, that exemption must be perpetual or we
shouldn't distribute it (even if it's legal to do so for some amount of
time).
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
something.
And it's a wierd distinction. You need to specify why you want educators
to be able to make 1000 photocopies and NOT allow amazon.com to do so.
Why should students not have the ability to modify and distribute the
document?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
this a lot. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem (immutable
sections are simply unfree), but in the case where they're not used, it
makes it easy to use the text in GPL software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
the DFSG to
fit some license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposal.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clearer that a work can express a point of
view which may be different than that of the endorsers.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
? As I think more and more about this, It seems
unlikely that those who don't want as much freedom as pure GPL would give
their users would be satisfied with just endorsements. But maybe I'm
wrong, so it seems worth a try.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a GPL conversion clause. This
would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
Actually, it would only suspend it.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
How could
to the original license.
But this is exactly what you're saying, so I'll believe it. Thanks for
the clarification.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
description - force of detail perhaps. In any case, I'm
afraid I've strayed from serious points about the license into
philosophical exploration of picayune GPL details, so I'll stop for
awhile.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
these rights, but it's their work and therefore their choice.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the recommendation should be seperate from the license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be that
the implementation filename restrictions make it so impractical that it's
not doable without tons of extra work. THAT is the confusion - it's not
disallowed, but it's made way too hard, so it comes down to human
judgement whether it's free enough.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
a mapping program that specified that Taiwan may not be
shown in a color different from China? Even if the authors only wanted to
ensure that all users got consistent output on different distributions?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
-license
the software, such that the LPPL is available to anyone who recieves the
package, and the LP Maintainer License is available to people who fit
the requirements as defined in that document.
This recommendation is simply for clarity, not because of any conceptual
objection.
--
Mark Rafn
Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
accessible by users other than yourself.
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did
'), but this is also the reason FSF agreed that it
is a free software license.
It's clearly a judgment of how intrusive is it. Arguments that it's not
very intrusive show (IMO) that this requirement should be removed from the
license.
In other words: if it doesn't matter, why require it?
--
Mark Rafn
be a lot less clear.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not a DD.
Nor am I. I'm just a user who shoots my mouth off, and I learn more from
d-l than I contribute.
Put me down as it doesn't
and patches
available in addition to the patched binaries, but you can't disallow
distribution of the modified software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(it interferes with
the preferred form for editing, meaning the distributed source is not
really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only
be done via trademark.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
(from any
semi-free license), so I urge you to adopt that and make a license that
does it well rather than one that does the first badly.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
!
A bug has been filed. I hope there's a workaround available (like
proactively renaming cmr10.mf, or finding a free replacement), but I
haven't seen anyone address it yet.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
for the clarification. As long as PDA tinyLaTeX can be
distributed with pristine source on another medium (like a CD), it's ok
(IMO). The fact that the pristine source can't be used on the PDA is
irrelevant - it was distributed with it, as required.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
.
This is an intriguing idea. It appears to satisfy the need for LaTeX to
ensure that a hacked file doesn't get run with pristine LaTeX while not
running afoul of the DFSG.
How does this not run afoul of the DFSG? It places even worse limits on
modification than the previous attempts?
--
Mark Rafn
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
Mark Rafn wrote:
This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple license
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents can
determine if they're running on real latex. This disallows preserving
the API exactly while changing
modification (in ways you haven't imagined yet) and of how forcefully you
need to inform users that they have a modified version.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are undesirable, but I'm unwilling
to take away the right to make them.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thing.)
The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
running the program what version she has, and the registration is intended
to prevent compatible derivative works.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
What is the difference between that and the following?
register_std(LaTeX);
(Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat
thing.)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf
accept the exact same files if they were in 10 independent packages but
reject them if they were all in one. If pushed, I will concede that this
is illogical, and the rule should really be filename limitations make a
package non-free
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
there is very little incentive to excercise
this loophole. It does mean that Debian shouldn't accept software under
3b or 3c of the GPL. Which we probably wouldn't anyway for logistics
reasons.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
of
the imperfect patches? I know which world I prefer.
In the end, I choose free software over non-free, when both are available,
and I believe that freedom has innate strengths that simply lead to better
programs. I hope you come to the same conclusion, but if not, I wish you
the best regardless.
--
Mark
-through is evidence (not proof, but a strong hint) that the
copyright holder intends the work to be unfree. It may be free through a
mistake or weakness in the license, but this kind of restriction is
fundamentally incompatible with Debian freeness.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
is the basic right that
Debian guarantees its users, and invariant sections remove that ability.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when
you are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's
opinions in an article)
Mark Rafn wrote:
Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right that
Debian guarantees its users
.
And if it's doable with a pure copyright license, the EULA is unnecessary.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
differences in the documents. The answer may be to simply
maintain a FAQ somewhere about the differences.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
definition
rather than a set of guidelines.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
document, when deciding if something is debian-free.
If I can help toward this end, please let me know.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
- I don't know all that much about OSI. I
think OSI and Debian can and should strive for #2 seperately (and help
each other with suggestions, when asked).
If #2 (which takes years, and never ends) doesn't result in moving closer
to each other, it may be due to #1.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
The version modified May 14, 2002 seems to have problems with it.
Very much so. The license is kind of a mess
if our critera have different words and different processes
for determination.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
add a license.
I'd modify the file that contains the above comment to include the fact
that the author has since declared it public domain. Include the e-mail,
if possible, with the package.
PD is clearly free :)
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
requires a user to accept a contract that
would limit use based on postcard-sending.
Still, we tend to take the author at his word, and this demand is very
non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
?) If it is OK to
package the remainder of Root, I will mention this to upstream.
Yup, distributing it (even dynamically linked) infringes the copyright on
the Cernlib libraries.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
software.
Of course, IANADD and IANADFtpmaster, so please take this message only
for what it is: one user's opinion.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
does, my preventing you from connecting to the free server
using non-free clients.
It does? I'd be interested to hear more about this, as I don't see how
free software can restrict usage.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
a service based on modified GPL code
without making the source available to users of the service.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to the copyright and disclaims warranty.
I'd still prefer it be gone, as it makes annoying some cases of extracting
functionality from interactive programs into easily-scripted ones.
However, it's much less onerous than those we routinely reject based on
DFSG 3.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
to be the intention of the license's author(s).
Desirable to whom? It's sounding less free by a long shot than the
copyright law covers only distribution interpretation.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
.
If a court were to rule that this is the correct definition of GPL2c, we
likely will find that we have some infringing software in Debian, and
we'll need to deal with it.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to a renderer in
response to a query any different from delivering a blob of text to a
logfile watcher in response to a syslog() call? Or delivering email to a
user by writing some files in response to a cron invocation?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Sure, but why limit it to web apps? Almost all apps communicate with the
user in some manner. How is delivering a blob of HTML to a renderer in
response to a query any different from delivering a blob of text to a
logfile
the program. It's at most interacting with
a running program.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, but it is too restrictive for me to consider free. The vast
majority of rejected almost-free licenses fit into this category for me.
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
agreement, or runs
on a different medium)?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
could be judged differently based on extra-license
comments the copyright holder has made regarding intent or interpretation,
or based on how the content of the package interacts with license
stipulations.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, is it worth the incredible hassle to
recipients to add such a demand?
My answers are no and no.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, however, be able to make some modifications under fair use
without a permission granted by the license.
Interestingly, 2c includes a requirement for a notice that users may
redistribute the program, but no requirement that users can actually get a
copy of the program to redistribute.
--
Mark Rafn
Copyright Holder.
I think there's a fundamental problem. I'm leaning toward the opinion
that forced distribution is unfree. Forced distribution to users, to
viewers, to authors, or to the public. None of it sits right.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
of interpretation. I'd further
claim that it's not GPL-compatible, as there are many pieces of GPL
software that it cannot be combined with and maintain the page footer
requirement.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
into non-free. It's free or it's not
distributable at all. Not distributable is my opinion given no
information but what Hugo has provided.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
software whose author has given an
indication that he intends to retroactively change a license. It's under
question whether this is possible, but I don't want to be a test case.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn wrote:
Also, Debian should not distribute software whose author has given an
indication that he intends to retroactively change a license. It's under
question whether this is possible, but I don't want to be a test case.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
I have heard
of the
site not at all.
I have trouble understanding how you can say this. Are you not less
likely to visit a site that doesn't support HTTP than you are to visit one
that doesn't support RSS.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
