batist wrote:
snip
It's a bit like the
contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
legal in civil law.
Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-)
This corresponds
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL.
Florian Weimer wrote:
* MJ Ray:
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
DFSG-free.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
they're effectively arbitrary - they haven't been
Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
that such a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
Did you mean 9A(b)? Any requirement for sending source
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit
worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it,
since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml
package. And i wonder if it will come to
,--- Forwarded message (begin)
Subject: Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
From: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:08:12 -0400
Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project,gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Colin Watson wrote
Florian Weimer wrote:
The main idea behind some patent clauses is to make the copyright
license conditional on some behavior with respect to patents.
Such as not claiming in a lawsuit that the work infringes a patent? :-)
Well, in that case, there are two possibilities:
(1) The work doesn't
MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect a first step is to split the licences into copyright and
trademark sections if possible.
That's not necessarily necessary if it's a very permissive license and is
written very carefully, but it is probably a good idea.
I assume this needs to be a US law
copyright
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
applicable laws.
License grantors do
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
least one Free document in the word processor's format,
Except that in this case, new documents could be created with the word
processor, so it would work
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Package name: musicxml
* URL : http://musicxml.org/dtds/
* License : MusicXML Document Type Definition Public License
Mike Olson wrote:
I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list:
What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free?
GPL, 2-clause BSD, MIT/X11.
(We have high hopes that CC-by will be amended to be so but it isn't now.)
How do you guys think about marks, and
Walter Landry wrote:
There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
The choice of venue and the send changes back clauses are both
problematic.
We do think it doesn't have *that* many problems. :-)
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Øystein Gisnås:
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! --
and happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to
distribute it
before he's ready!
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
Andreas Barth wrote:
That's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
typical civil law construct.
And a disastrous mistake, but never mind that!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* right to not have to share
modifications;
Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications.
What right? :-)
--
There are
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally *nobody*
agreed with, and FTPmaster James Troup, who never makes any
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that
are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that
change if you distribute the software privately to one other person?
No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
network
Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time anyway? What practical benefit does this
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with
| Request Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you
| are the copyright holder for those
Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Send it to a third party and reveal your identity are just as readily
read as non-free from DFSG#1 as pet a cat and distribution only on CD.
If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
the latter
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello debian-legal.
I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a
solution
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
We can't do anything about that reliably, even if there isn't a choice
of venue clause. The licensor might just look for a court that views
itself responsible, with suitable rules.
The licensee can reply by mail that the venue is inappropriate. Now, some
courts do
MJ Ray wrote:
Jeremy Hankins proposed guidelines for writing summaries in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00227.html
Following discussion on this list after recent unpleasantness, I would
like to propose replacing them with:
1) Draft summaries should be marked clearly and
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
How is it not, exactly? It does not limit, in any way, your rights to
use, modify or distribute the software.
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By replying to any messages in this thread, you agree to order me a pizza.
So, what's your address and what's your local pizza place? ;-)
The above is merely a false statement.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say
MJ Ray wrote:
In general, I don't think this ocaml bug should be pursued until
general issues have been settled (or comprehensively fail to reach
anything like consensus in reasonable time) for libcwd, which came
here more recently. Is it proper for any packager of a QPL'd work
currently in
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
We've thought about it and discussed it; they haven't
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with patents. If a
license termination clause isn't being actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
I would assume that if a licensor put such a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient
to render MP3 players
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's my model no-nonsense license (for the Open Use logo; I'm not
going to worry about the other one).
Copyright license:
You may copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of
this logo.
Good idea to make distribute
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Nathaneal Nerode writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian-legal is the place where one interpretation is given.
Many interpretations.
Those who
actually end up making the decisions
RM Anthony Towns, who has espoused interpretations which literally
*nobody* agreed with,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Personally, I think all of our tests should be explicitly tied to some
practical concern so we have some basis for reasoning when unanticipated
situations arise.]
This is really about freedoms. You don't want to *lose* freedoms (the right
to criticize the author, sue
Sam Hartman wrote:
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
enforced, and there's no good reason
I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
* The Earth texture was created by NASA using data from the MODIS
instrument aboard the Terra satellite.? Further information is
available
from
* All other planet maps from David Seal's site:
http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/
License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and
here it is:
---
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites
ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address)
Well, I did the rest in one message since the comments were short.
* Mars texture map is from James Hastings-Trew's collection.
Is there any information known about the origin of this? That's really
necessary before you can legally distribute it. If James Hastings-Trew took
the pictures, a
Correction. :-)
* M31, Orion and the Pleiades pictures come from Herm Perez :
http://home.att.net/~hermperez/default.htm
Just found this on the web page:
Feel free to use these images, if you use them in a commercial setting please
attribute the source.
That's the
No, you stated it fine. A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
We have accepted must-change-name clauses (which are worse) in the past based
on the reasoning
While a work may be in the public domain in the U.S., it may be under
copyright elsewhere. So, e.g., while works by the U.S. government may be
public domain in the U.S., they may remain under copyright in other
countries.
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
the core of Nathaniel's concerns.
That's Nathan*a*el. :-)
Looks good. I was,
: Edmund Evans, Steve Langasek,
Andrew Suffield, Brian Sniffen, Evan Prodromou, Branden Robinson, Josh
Triplett, Michael Poole, MJ Ray, Nathanael Nerode, Henning Makholm, Raul
Miller, Matthew Palmer, Walter Landry, and myself.
Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
DFSG
Joe Wreschnig wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00200.html:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause. That is, the X
license says Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
applies to?
Absolutely.
In the X11 license:
Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in
supporting
In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(
Ahh, the horror continues.
I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.
Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to
use his code under any license as long
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following
conditions (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
anything of the sort.
Are we perhaps talking about
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition
Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
clause QPL
6c problem.
Excellent.
FYI, I think this is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally
agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic
licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't linked against the
kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal
BTS wrote:
3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license --
that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such
as the application of them to the mainline source) except as
further patches.
Ah, the devil's in the details. See, I was wondering whether
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
In the old version, he did so in the file LICENSE, but that is
technically not enough--you must do so in such a way that identifies
*which files* are being licensed. The normal way is to put the
license statement in every file; but he could also list the files in
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
I'm not sure which project Bruce refers to when he talks about the project
leader here. I assume the Debian project. Apparently. SPI will change the
licence if the Debian project tells them to.
Debian-legal: should Martin Michlmayr, the DPL, be asked to change the
shermans-aquarium:
The fish images are taken from a freeware windows screen saver by
Jim Toomey.(www.slagoon.com)...
...So the fish images are copyrighted by Jim Toomey, and released
in his screensaver as freeware. But he didn't give me permission to use
his graphics, but neither did he tell me
Kaquarium appears to contain graphics from shermans-aquarium,
but without the copyright notices
Plus upstream doesn't have any statement saying that it's under the GPL.
(Neither does kfish, by the same upstream.)
Clearly the ftpmasters don't have time to check whether NEW packages are
Glenn Maynard asked:
Is it valid to combine GPL work placed under GPL version 2 with one
under GPL version 2 or any later version? That is, do versioning
choices impact compatibility (when the versions overlap)? Are all future
modifications bound to give the same permission to upgrade the GPL?
Sven Luther asked:
BTW, what about an upload of miboot to non-free ? What would be needed for
that ? A simple permission from apple ?
Permission for Debian and its mirror network to distribute the boot sector.
That's all that would be needed for non-free.
--
Regarding clearn-room
Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're
replying to my forwarding of the official answer, repeating the answer
as if it wasn't there. I can't imagine why, though I'm a little wary
at the moment for a Nerode-flood of thirty such useless replies at once
...
Reading list mail *way* behind, sorry. I was
Mark Hymers wrote:
A wdiff between this and the VTK license shows that just the names of
the contributors have been changed (as you'd expect). It appears to be
a modified BSD license (i.e. without advertising clause) with one extra
clause:
* Modified source versions must be plainly marked
this helps,
--Nathanael Nerode
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of
debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's
clear
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:25:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no
restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to
bargain in a license, to say I'll give you a license to this stuff,
but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own are
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
users, not excluding bad ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
forfeits the right to distribute the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
can
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is no
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
Oops, left part out. This should say something like:
Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
license in question,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
without any real cost.
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
costs.
It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you not sue the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Now, there's a practical issue: the copyright holder may change, so
the copyright holder isn't the original licensor--if I buy the copyright
for the work, the existing licensees aren't going to suddenly get a
license to *my* patents, as well. (I don't presently agree with
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
Work.
non-free: all available documentation seems to contaminate
Mikael Magnusson wrote:
Hi
I'm packaging portaudio (ITP #269925), and have been informed by Junichi
Uekawa that there might be a problem with the license. It's basically a
BSD license with the following additional clause:
Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
Michael Poole wrote:
Loss of patent license means the user cannot use the software. Loss
of copyright license (at least in the USA) only removes the license of
a user to modify or copy the software further. I do not see how the
former is narrower than the latter,
I suppose you could copy
Josh Triplett wrote:
Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
the uses of unmodified or insufficiently different versions.
Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being part
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the
odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks
(Originals) where modification may actually change the original.
It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute
copies (modified
Josh Triplett wrote:
7. Sub-licensing
Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who
wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound
to the author of the original work.
This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based on the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of license NIH' refer to?
not invented here; people writing their own licenses, or modifying
them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It's a
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the
terms of the GPL.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived work of the GPL program
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Choice of law is considered DFSG-free, which binds the license to the
law of one place.
...provided that place's law isn't known to cause the license to have a
non-free legal interpretation when it would otherwise be interpreted to be
free (of course)...
That isn't the
Brian M Hunt wrote:
Or perhaps more succinctly, whether or not the
cost of legally enforceable dispute resolution is a suitable restriction
on DFSG to prevent a license from reflecting free software.
Yes, insofar as the law is the only thing enforcing the licenses. :-P
--
This space
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:32:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, then the question is, is that combined program a derived work of
the GPLed program?
If it consists of two pieces: the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library
-- and each exists and is fully functional
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is
legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece
of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your patent
are
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot
easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual
projects to put things in perspective with one another ...
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote
Glenn Maynard wrote:
(Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails
concerning possible MUA problems ...)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
You haven't been reading my postings?
I doubt anyone is reading all of your postings, due
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Nathanael, my CC to you bounced, because your ISP is using a bullshit
spam filter. I'm only forwarding this to make sure that you're aware
that you're losing legitimate mail because of it.
Yes, I'm in the process of getting a new account.
--
This space intentionally
Josh Triplett wrote:
First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
license for the logo without allowing it to become diluted, then that
does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
Second, I'm not
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the
language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as
the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany?
Hosting location and intended audience, I assume.
Being
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
the uses of unmodified or insufficiently different versions.
Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
projects
Roger Leigh wrote:
During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
number of issues have cropped up, which I'd be grateful if you could
assist with. I have pointed to Manoj's draft position statement as a
401 - 500 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
