with
the Object Management Group's Internet Inter-ORB Protocol version
one. However, any uses other than the foregoing uses shall require
the express written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
The entire copyright file is attached.
Richard Braakman
This package was debianized by Ossama Othman [EMAIL
.
Richard Braakman
to this
one and if translated must be stated in a translation approuved by Mario
Motta.
I'd like to see the last sentence clarified. Do all translations
require approval? If not, what does it mean?
Richard Braakman
didn't say Open Source. He said open source, and it looks
to me like he was using both words in their natural meaning.
Richard Braakman
(Sent to debian-legal, Cc to package maintainer)
I found this package in Incoming. I'm not sure if we can distribute
it; clause 4 is a bit funny. Also, it seems to permit distribution of
derived works BUT NOT verbatim copies (nontransferable license),
which is weird.
The mrouted program is
uses.
If you modify the DNSsafe software itself, you cannot modify its
documented API, [...]
Richard Braakman
, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
If my work is not a derivative of the GPL'd work, under copyright law,
then that work's license has no bearing on mine.
Richard Braakman
independent, i.e. not derived from A). I agree with
Marcus that the text of the GPL does not affect this, except where
the GPL limits its own scope.
Richard Braakman
and pushed for just a little bit of realism
here.
Cites, please. I have never seen him propose this, and I have seen
none of these steps. You are misrepresenting him.
Richard Braakman
at the top. Nothing about the social contract, and
no steps taken. I think you should investigate how many of your
views regarding RMS are based on things he actually said and did.
He's often misrepresented; everybody loves a strawman.
Richard Braakman
by Bart Vanhauwaert, 1998.
I think the second paragraph makes it non-DFSG-free.
Richard Braakman
. A blacklist.
Also... where can I see these lists? If they are not publically available,
then I can't even know if I'm complying with the license.
Richard Braakman
I've ever seen.
So if that is all he wants, an X-like license would be fine.
I bet that would attract more people than the QPL would.
The QPL is patches-only; I would certainly avoid any program
under that license.
Richard Braakman
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
Hmm. Patches are usually submitted under the same license as the
original work. I can't think of any exceptions I've ever seen.
So if that is all he wants, an X-like license would be fine.
That would allow him to do whatever he wanted
it. I see only two mails about the ldp-nag license
(prior to this exchange), and neither is from you. Can you repeat it?
Richard Braakman
Stephen Zander wrote:
Richard == Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the
JDK Version 1.1.x Internal Noncommercial Use Source License1 of 4
Nov 10, 1998
which I have signed states, in part
[...]
Thanks for the information, this clears up a lot.
Therefore
non-free, since for example we wouldn't
be able to link it with a Qt that was modified to fix bugs. If you allow
more, how much more? This could easily open up a loophole in the GPL.
Perhaps you'd be better off with the MIT license in the first place.
Richard Braakman
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
That won't work. The additional permission granted doesn't help us,
since we also distribute Qt itself.
1- read the rest of the email and you'll notice the further
change to:
Sorry, elm only showed me the first part because
distribute. I think this instance does refer to distribution.
Distribute without charge is a normal phrase, as is License without
fee. Switch them around and it's not so normal anymore.
Richard Braakman
the
modifications. Modified executables must be renamed to not
conflict with the standard names.
The last sentence means that we cannot make bugfixes that remain
command-line compatible with the upstream version.
Richard Braakman
Henning Makholm wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. Modified object or executable code must be accompanied by the
modified source code and/or documentation clearly stating the
modifications. Modified executables must be renamed to not
conflict
good, though :)
Richard Braakman
for XForms.
Too wordy?
Thanks to all of you!
Since there were no comments on this, can I consider the above
satisfactory?
Indeed. I can find no holes in it, even with nitpick mode set to ultra :)
Richard Braakman
, by the way. CD vendors
should not have to worry about what each author considers reasonable.
Richard Braakman
.
The only problem might be if the original program distribution
contains code under a different license, or perhaps patent-encumbered
or export-hindered code, that we would rather leave out and not
distribute at all. With this license we don't have that option.
Richard Braakman
under
this Agreement. If the licenses are compatible in the first place,
then nothing prevents a Contributor from offering it under both licenses.
Richard Braakman
not conflict with the requirements the IPL
places on redistribution.
Richard Braakman
using any non-free parts?
Richard Braakman
to it instead,
though, and then take responsibility for Debian's use and distribution
of the program. I do not think that would be wise.
Richard Braakman
just
think that such use makes the software less free, and freedom of
software is what I care about.
Richard Braakman
.
Note that I changed your wording a bit. I think that for the purpose
of is far too permissive; the restrictions have to actually
accomplish their goal. Of course, this is hard to determine
objectively, so we have to use our collective judgement.
Richard Braakman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As an example, I don't think the DFSG (taken literally) has room for the
GPL's requirements for distributing source code.
The only field of endeavor you could contrive to argue this point would
be one that would take
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 03:20:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first part only allows distribution for money if it's for use offline.
This forbids distribution for money over a network. Either makes
it non-free.
I think this is just like
, already does what (I think) you mean with the phrase
You may not charge for the OC itself in paragraph 1.
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
This is indeed the version I'm looking at.
Richard Braakman
, and no license is given for this:
Regular expression parsing in search.c Copyright 1981, 1980 James
Gosling. Modified by Tom London (1981); ripped to shreds and glued
back together to make a search package by Larry Wall (1984).
Richard Braakman
a definition of Open Source operating system
distribution.
Richard Braakman
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:24:36PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Darren O. Benham wrote:
[2] This is what I was told on IRC after talking to Richard Braakman and
James Troup... distilled..
Before KDE is going to get in, the ftpmasters have to be sure
that there is no third
This was uploaded for main, and I am completely puzzled by the licence.
Please help.
Richard Braakman
-
This is Debian/GNU Linux's prepackaged version of the `trn' threaded
newsreader by Wayne Davison, Larry Wall
.
In GENERAL:
3.a terminates your rights if a non-frivolous claim relating
to the source code is made. It does contain another sentence which
directly contradicts this, however.
4. requires you to abide by US export laws and regulations.
--
Richard Braakman
it removed. There's no shortage of
packages if you want to maintain a new one.
Richard Braakman
) that the DFSG is meant to protect.
I don't think so. It's postcardware. It encumbers all these activities,
just like software that says send me a postcard if you use it.
Richard Braakman
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 02:39:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:00:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[you must allow the author the right to use your modifications in
proprietary programs].
Oops, snipped too much
argument.
Richard Braakman
. It was never meant to be a legally solid
definition of free software, and it isn't. I wouldn't use it as part
of a contract.
Richard Braakman
would rather not add a new one.
In particular, making lintian depend on a non-free tool would mean removing
lintian from main. That is not a good thing.
Richard Braakman
James why the extra permissions make the package
unsuitable for Debian main.
The way I read it, the rejection was just because the copyright
file did not contain the full license.
Richard Braakman
effect that should have on interpretation.
Richard Braakman
as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
I think that licensed as a whole at no charge includes license
to use, because it doesn't say it doesn't, but I don't know what
the legal interpretation would be.
Richard Braakman
a Debian package is a derived product?
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
If that was the case then the Apache package should
(there are certainly plenty of
them around) and decides to call it Apache*Pro or something.
The trademark approach works for several open projects I know of,
including Debian itself, Linux, and the Kannel project (which I do
for a living).
Richard Braakman
(Should I continue to Cc you? I'm not sure if you're
the author as this
statement, but it's pretty thin evidence. A public statement would
be much better.
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:31:53PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
Creating such a test would be a lot of work if you don't already
have one.
Yes, I'm not thinking of a compatibility test suite. I'm thinking of
things like All modifications must
. (It might get worse fast if hardware vendors
start pushing closed platforms like copy-restricting hard disks, but
I doubt any geek would want one of those in the first place.)
Richard Braakman
been generated from Eiffel sources.
This was fixed upstream after the problem was pointed out.
Richard Braakman
is not the answer - most will probably just
withdraw support, saving it for some other alternative, less picky operating
system (like windows).
By the same token, we can buy hardware from more accommodating vendors.
Richard Braakman
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:34:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
We usually allow some time for license issues to be resolved. In the
extreme case of KDE it was more than a year :)
You forget: KDE was removed from the archive during that time.
No, I'm specifically
about the validity of the patent.
Richard Braakman
you want to do, explain that their standard
license won't work (otherwise they'll simply reply with a pointer to
that license), and ask for permission. When describing what you want
to do, pay special attention to exactly how, in what format, and to
whom their product will be distributed.
Richard
or product names, you
might also run into trademark law.
Richard Braakman
(Occasionally has lunch with a lawyer)
. FreeDOS _is_ an
operating system! It doesn't run on anything else. So I think
the escape clause is unusable here.
--
Richard Braakman
Looking for a job writing free software.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
that could
be gotten rid of fairly easily.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
).
The difference becomes significant if someone takes part of L1 and uses
it in some other project. Then the dependency on L2 may not apply.
Even if the dependency is extreme, the other project would reimplement
L1 under a different license, and then use L2 under the LGPL.
--
Richard Braakman
, or by mutual
agreement: [...]
... but nothing in the license grants permission to distribute modified
versions. Local modification is, after all, local. That's the sticking
point.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
-technical], and as long
as it can be removed. That way, we can distribute editorial text
(such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact the
freeness of the work it accompanies.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
any others without prior discussion.
Richard Braakman
migrate to smaller manuals.
I don't think the size of the manual it originally accompanies is
all that relevant.
[I've cut down the crossposts to just debian-legal and debian-policy.]
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
merits) is
exactly what they are designed for.
We don't have to get into the tangled question of whether the DFSG can
be amended. We can publish such a Resolution as a new document.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
when it is no longer true. Web site foo might have
been turned into one of those obnoxious porn sites that use javascript
in creative ways. But still, you must preserve that notice.
Richard Braakman
moved it was handled via silent replacement of the license text. I even
wrote the Lintian check for that :-) But the GPL has explicit provisions
that allow such upgrading, which the Emacs manual does not have.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl
of Anthony Towns's proposal?
Indeed. I hadn't realized that, until I re-read the mail where he
explained it again. Yes, there would be only minor differences
between his proposal and what I had in mind.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:00:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
From tex.web:
Do we even distribute TeX? We have packages for tetex, which claims
to be GPLed. I didn't look very closely, though.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark
for that, the essay's non-freeness wouldn't be an issue.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
the clause, not weaken it.
Some packages come with licenses that restrict what other software it
can be bundled with. For example, a license might specify that if
a package is distributed on CD, then all the other software on that
CD must be free. DFSG#1 forbids such a restriction.
Richard Braakman
might go in the other direction, too. We've already seen
how broadly the No discrimination against fields of endeavor clause
can be interpreted. If you make such a commercial product, can you have
any confidence that you have followed the license in a way that will
hold up in court?
Richard
in princible from
a license where reasonable is determined by the copyright holder,
or the courts.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the name is restricted, and
that's not a filename restriction. The distinction is important if
filenames are part of the technical interface.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, there is the possibility of *reading* files that it shouldn't,
and embedding them in the output somehow. This might cause me to
unknowingly publish a document that has my secret keys hidden in it.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
here. I'll wait for some response to the bugreport.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change ls all you want as long as you rename the binary)
Richard Braakman
://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.htm
In summary, they believe that they have prior art, and they're asking
for more examples of prior art.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get.
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release
. That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
offer, and customers don't have to bother with source CDs if they don't
want them. I expect that many will get the source just because it's
free, but the vendor might prefer that to the 3-year offer.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance
a contradiction (apparent?)
between the debian/copyright file and the license text.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
giving a CD to a friend.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get.
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
evidence that the GPL does not pass this test (published
daily on gnu.misc.discuss), but I'm willing to grandfather it in :-)
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get.
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
: it's a condition on the license, not on what it covers.
A derived work can only become non-free if extra restrictions are added
(such as marking new text as an Invariant Section).
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get
that this size requirement is only on the _source_ tarball, you
will always be able to build a binary tarball that is smaller.
This links back to the discussion of what build time means, but
it's pretty clear to me that creating a Debian package is building.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
Well, one of the properties of free software is that you can change it
:)
I thought the primary benefit was to have unending discussions about license
issues... :)
That's another of the properties of free
, by stating that those licenses
do in fact meet the Guidelines. Any intepretations that would contradict
that are therefore incorrect. Remember, these are Guidelines, not a
Definition. They were never intended to be watertight.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions
LaTeX :-)
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hate being CC'd on
mailing list discussions because I get duplicate messages)
Not CCing is the default policy for Debian mailing lists.
--
Richard Braakman
I sense a disturbance in the force
As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get.
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release
that. The license of
libgnomevfs does not prevent that.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a parallel situation?
(Consider that it protects web designers from having their HTML
rendered in an unexpected way.)
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
does not affect what can be installed on a user's
machine.
Richard Braakman
an interesting point here. If it's really true that it's not
possible to express the same functionality in more than one way, then
TeX macro files might not be copyrightable at all.
This is not likely to be settled without a court case, though, so it's
not a useful line of reasoning for us.
Richard
to be achieved.
Richard Braakman
to stand on about
LZW either (IBM had an older patent on the same algorithm), but
we moved GIF encoders to non-free anyway -- more as a political
statement than anything else.
Richard Braakman
, a strong versioning system could be an improvement over
filename-and-official-author based schemes, except for possibly
being more complicated. It might mean having to keep large numbers
of versions of popular packages around, though, in order to have a
complete system.
Richard Braakman
for it to be part of
Debian. The discussion in bug#153257 might be relevant here.
Richard Braakman
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
