Stephen Frost wrote:
What's the scenario you're concerned about here? Someone taking Debian
and distributing it as MyLinux and Debian not protecting that use
somehow?
Stephen
Not even that. The license only applies to (c) on AUTHORIZED
GOODS/SERVICES which are (i) produced by or for
that would further reduce the standard for novelty of
patents by making some prior art irrelevant. I am working on this, as
are CCIA, EFF and the Public Patent Foundation.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Your opinion (and I would generaly agree there) would be that the
pseudo source files released are not source as per GPLs definition
A lot of these BLOBs have been identified as ARM7 code, and generally
thumb (the 8-bit ARM instructions). They come from C or
Glenn,
If you don't have a physical copy of the device, the driver doesn't
work either. Very similarly to the way it would act if you don't have
the firmware. The problem is that we have to distribute the
firmware when it's a BLOB.
Thanks
Bruce
Glenn Maynard wrote:
If the driver has
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Also why would anyone be forced to distribute the blob? The problem
isn't that we have to distribute the blob. The problem is how free
do we judge the driver to be.
We judge that by the DFSG. The DFSG doesn't include any language about
dependencies on non-free
Luis,
SPI isn't Debian's master. SPI can not change licensing on Debian's
property without direction from the Debian project. And the requested
change is not trademark-related, it is entirely about copyright terms.
Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
project
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I figured but was mentioned on the thread SPI would be holder of the
copyrights.
Yes. Holder on Debian's behalf. You folks are in the driver's seat.
Was also advised to e-mail trademark lists.
They probably have something to contribute regarding the form of
I saw a short note by Andrew Suffield regarding Choice of Venue in Free
Software licenses, which was pointed to by the Debian weekly news.
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits against them in
venues where it is
SPI manages property for the Debian project. If Debian wants to
use its own logo in a particular way, it's not our business to stand in
the way.
Thanks
Bruce
Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
Hi trademark ctte and SPI board,
-legal seems to think that a logo use question related to LinuxWorld
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL.
This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
it's pretty obvious. But I can keep the people mentioned on call in
the Debian side. A good candidate would
be able to approach the discussion with a constructive and dispassionate
attitude.
These folks will engage in a discussion and bring the result back to their
respective organizations for consideration.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
From: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want
invariant sections.
Actually, I am not convinced that FSF _as_an_organization_ wants
invariant sections. It appears so far that when they are coupled to
_software_documentation_ that they
It seems to me that the GFDL conflict is a conflict between the
needs of political speech, and the needs of of software documentation.
None of the parties disagree about the needs of software documentation.
Nobody is seriously proposing to allow the actual part of the text
that documents software
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh, wow, I'm not sure anybody was expecting *months*.
Well, last I heard you weren't doing anything about this before the next
Debian release, and those things don't happen instantly. But months is my
current estimate.
I will have some ex parte meetings
What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
and this could not take less than months.
I am on the geek cruise and can't email much this week. Since GFDL documents
are not going to change instantly, I suggest you go ahead with whatever plans
you have to remove GFDL
with both organizations _as_ organizations.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What, specifically are you requesting?
A) That I stop CCing or otherwise mailing RMS with queries or commentary
on this subject until your efforts have reached a conclusion, or are
abandoned;
or
B) That I be placed under a gag order and
Brendan, I especially need you
I need to spell your name right. Sorry.
Bruce
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a postscript, could you please summarize, to the debian-private list,
the efforts you've made to date to bring the parties to the table, apart
from those we've already seen on this list?
There's nothing I can't say here. I have had some off-list
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If your point is that it looks like *institutionally* we're making this
argument, then your point is taken.
I do think it is going to be better for me to deal with both organizations
using an institutional perspective. Personal perspectives seem to be
Richard,
I'm told that opinion on the GFDL within FSF is divided, and I have
hardly given up hope for movement on this topic.
Regarding FSF's definition of free software, it would have been nice if
you'd published one before we created the DFSG. We wouldn't have had to
write it. At the time we
please see some work on this, rather than bickering?
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The FSF, on the other hand, have explicitly stated that they have no
intention of even discussing the GFDL issue with us.
FSF will discuss the issue, I think I can see to that much. Some of you
had Richard backed against a wall, and of course people dig in and become
It would be a bizarre thing to me if RMS were to say If Debian were to
stop distributing non-free, the FSF would agree that documentation needs
to be as free as programs and change the GFDL.
I am _not_ calling for horse-trading between the two organizations. That
would inevitably lead to a
When designing the DFSG, I was considering the contents of a Debian CD,
much like the Official Debian ISO image, containing all of the Debian
software and documentation. I don't remember if I made the official CD
policy before or after the DFSG. I intended for the entire contents of
that CD to be
thing I can
help you with.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
I'm writing an open letter to Michael Robertson in a few hours, as an author
of infringed material. Is there anything you folks would like to say? Please
write to me directly, I don't read the list.
Bruce
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
that. This is taking the definition to the point of absurdity.
The GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
From: Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Probably, but this is actually the license for Descent 2.
Duh! I was thinking of a different Parallax Software Inc.
Thanks
Bruce
Folks,
I don't think we have to evaluate Linux _relative_to_windows_ when we talk
about user-friendliness. It is sufficient to look at Linux and realize that
there is much that could be improved and would make the naive' user's life
easier without making life more difficult for the rest of us.
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There doesn't have to be. Their premise is that they can not distribute to
people
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then how come the title of this thread?
That's how the thread started.
If they believe so strongly that these licenses would be prohibited as
illegal contracts with minors, then for every piece of IP in Debian that
is written by minors, they have no
From: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.
I'd be more comfortable with that, yes.
I have a little problem in that my company is investing in a Debian project
(The details of that are _not_ yet public knowledge). We want to maintain
AJ:
If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
licenses. It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here.
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
What sort of obligation?
To comply with the licenses of our software.
It'd be nice if they'd get around to contributing all their enhancements
back to Debian. That's a bit tricky since new-maintainers doesn't seem to
have reopened yet, and it
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?
You can't contract with a minor in the U.S.
From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:
I'm not communicating my point clearly.
What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to
From: Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
contaminating license. But please note that my original criticism never
Richard,
What bothers me is that you have to click yes on that license to get access
to my GPL software, even though my software isn't covered by the license.
Now, if the agreement was for use of their FTP site, that would be OK.
But it's a software license, and it is being used with my GPL work
PLEASE DON'T POST THIS ON SLASHDOT. If you want a story, please contact me
and I'll give you one.
I've been working for a venture capital company for the past few months.
I'm the president but only a minority owner, it's called Linux Capital
Group.
We're getting close to funding what could be
Hi Gavriel,
From: Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message.
I acknowledge that you guys are contributing work back to free software.
We appreciate that.
It's your legal department that has people tearing their hair. I worked
hard to sort out the
From: Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erm, it seems to me that at least the 2nd instance, went rather well - why
are you frustrated?
Because they are taking so long to get a clue.
Thanks
Bruce
not distribute
it. I'm not going to help them any longer.
Bruce Perens
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange that you see this `End User License Agrrement' page if
youclick on their own download page, but if if you click on the
middle icon to take you to ftp://ftp.linuxberg.com/pub/distributions/Corel/
or the left button to CNET download.
They are
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I feel like an idiot of course.
Not your fault.
Bruce
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps if they got email from 100 different @debian.org
adresses?
Not yet.
Then she should be fired. We should email her boss.
Well, maybe she should get a somewhat stronger message from others at Corel.
I wouldn't be nearly so frustrated about
From: Craig Brozefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we should draft a list of all developers who are minors,
Just wait a few days before you do that.
And please, folks, delete those messages that I mistakenly sent to the list.
Thanks
Bruce
) and blown
out of proportion.
I screwed up. I need to say that right now before serious damage results.
Bruce Perens
If they had phrased it as an FTP-site usage agreement, I would have had no
problem with it.
Bruce
From: Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe you should post something to that effect on
slashdot to calm the flames a little?
I did.
From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What i thought was :
- if im not free to mix the code with other code it is not
fully free
We defined free software in the same document, in the part we called the
Debian Free Software Guidelines.
I'm not sure how you could have missed it :-)
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had put up a web page with my objections, and sent private e-mail about it
to the OSI board.
Sorry, Seth, that was not what I was talking about. We did a public review
of the ATT license on license-discuss. Where were you with this objection
while
Please discuss using license-discuss@opensource.org . Note the arbitration
and legal expense clause.
Bruce
Novell Cooperative License 1.0 (NCL)
1. A Contributor is an individual or organization that makes code available
under the NCL by placing a Notice in computer programming code or
It's DFSG-compliant as far as I can tell. I went through several passes with
them.
Bruce
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The OSI does worry about export restrictions as license conditions; that
was a problem with the original Apple Public Source License. There is
still some controversy about that license, but the OSI got Apple to remove
the export-restriction language
it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
1. The IBM and Apple licenses also ask for you to have a URL where your
modifications can be found. I suspect things under those licenses are
already accepted into main. This is specificaly negociated _for_debian_
from IBM
I agree that CYA seems to be an important theme of the license.
ATT is the juiciest of lawsuit targets because their pockets are so deep. Any
attorney there who did not exert effort on CYA would be remiss in his duties.
I think they should have the right to CTAs if they do it in a way that keeps
AJ:
And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
it requires notifying ATT
This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses. What was considered non-free
were the ones that required you to send them email on _every_ modification,
that was judged to be too great a hardship
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some software distributors make you say I am aware of the export laws
and some make you say I promise to abide by the export laws. There is a
_huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a
service by preventing you from getting
From: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm, I didn't realize that. So what if I release a program under one of these
licenses, and am promptly hit and killed by a bus on the way home? You can't
contact me and you haven't before, so arn't you now prohibited from
modifying the software? That doesn't
It's too much of a slippery slope. Put something with 3000 lines of crypto
hooks in non-US. Then 300 lines. Then 30. Then anything that runs exec().
Bruce
Looks fine to me.
Bruce
From: Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What has changed that allows us to distribute mutt from the US to people
outside of the US despite the fact that mutt is capable of integrating with
strong encryption software and thereby capable of performing strong
encryption on messages it sends?
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 02:34:55PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
He is _trying_ to be DFSG-compliant but his license is mis-worded.
Someone should contact him.
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From what I've read, Donald Knuth doesn't work on internet time
There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him.
Bruce
He is _trying_ to be DFSG-compliant but his license is mis-worded.
Someone should contact him.
Thanks
Bruce
I'd suggest you start with the Open Publication License, remove the options,
and generalize it. They did a pretty good job, and the attribution requirements
work well to give a little edge to the people who paid for the work without
taking the result out of Open Source.
Thanks
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 the Artistic license restriction - notice the word
sole. It means that
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too complicated
A legal argument can be made that the relevant portions of header content
are not protectable by copyright since they are essentially a 'compilation
of facts'
They document the API of the library, so you get into the API copyright issue,
too.
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at Columbia is that run-time
linking is a device to circumvent the copyright of the library, which
otherwise would be static-linked and explicitly copied. Given the universality
of run-time linking, I think there's a good counter-argument that
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable speaker
on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also an attorney.
They are on our side, and they are not as sanguine on this issue as you
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll still take the stance that because this hasn't gone to court
that we don't know what the courts will decide.
I will amplify this for you. We are writing the rules as we go along.
There is a body of case law that must be accumulated before those
rules can
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device
Hi Erich and Debian Folks,
I had dinner with Pamela Samuelson (Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley) and
Mitchell Baker (Attorney and head of Mozilla) this evening. We discussed
the dpkg + get_it issue and various examples of derivation without
conventional copying of one work directly into another.
Raul:
This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
I think we all got to the point of exasperation on that argument. And having
discussed it with attorneys this evening, they don't have a good answer either.
So, I think it's best to table it until something changes, like legislation or
a
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless of whether
or not any other application uses it, and such copying is simple aggregation.
Why make
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
stops functioning if you remove another component of the system. Copyright
law deals with copying.
You are grasping
Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
/copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law doesn't care
what programs do _when_they_run_ because it has no
I'd guess that Modula-3 compiler is including GPL headers to work with the
GPL back-end. Is there confirmation of that?
Thanks
Bruce
From: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
push the intermediate code into the gcc backend. You wouldn't need
headers to do that..
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the
From: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one could make
a GPL'ed patch for gcc to make inserting intermediate code simple, and then
write a proprietary tool to generate that code..
No, it'a already easy to insert intermediate code, I
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The backend (which I found at
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
) is not pure GCC; they add (=link) in an m3.c which begins with
/* Copyright (C) 1993, Digital Equipment Corporation */
/* All
Hmmm. I also suspect that the performance of a play would constitute
a derived work
You can also perform a computer program, it's generally called _use_.
The program's output may be derivative.
Given that the GPL has language that is extremely un-restrictive regarding
use, I doubt it could be
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few
bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd
have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.
Well, this is different in that you are copying the hit single.
One problem this thread illustrates is that the GPL is too darned easy
to circumvent today. When it was written, there was less use of dynamic
linking, less client-server computing, and no object brokers.
Bruce
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
quote
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The Program, below,
refers to any such program or work, and a
From: Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given the choice between making the GPL a non-free license and having a
way to potentially do something bad with a GPLed program, I would say it's
better to leave things as they are.
It's a false dichotomy. I think we could keep it a free license and close
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
even though the text of the screen play is in
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you take
out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front end
can't happen.
Well, I'd like the law to agree with you, actually. The problem is that
copyright law does not consider
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll switch from talking about lib-apt to talking about dpkg, because
that's the case at hand from my POV. Corel are distributing dpkg -
ie, they are making copies. Making copies is something that copyright
law says only the copyright holder may give
We have a lot of good fights to fight, but freeness of actual license text
isn't one of them. If someone thinks that is inconsistent, we can always
answer them with that famous Emerson quote A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of small minds.
Thank
Bruce
Yes, it definitely makes sense for license text to be non-alterable.
In particular, you can't be allowed to change the license that someone else
has applied to their work. However, you _can_ be allowed to copy that
license, modify it, and apply it to your own work. The GPL doesn't really
give you
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Troll's refusal to license Qt under the GPL and then have a different
license for those who want to hide their source code is apparently nothing
more than an act of spite against the free software community (perhaps
compounded by ignorance of licensing
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
modifiaction to be in main.
Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
Bruce
From: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He did bring up an interesting point: would translating something from
English to Dutch also fall under encryption? It seems to fit all the
criteria for encryption..
No. Here's why:
Codes and cyphers are not the same thing, although the term code is
QPL version 1.0 and not 2.0?
Bruce
Or am I just confused and QPL 1.0 is the license applied to Qt 2.0 ?
Bruce
From: Gergely Madarasz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Btw this will mean that you won't be allowed to use other people's GPL
code in libapt-pkg, right ?
No, it simply means that any contributors to the library must accept both
licenses. Essentially, there is one license that is the GPL, another that
says
Lose it. We shouldn't be providing weak crypto.
Bruce
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
