going
into non-free. Perhaps legal counsel should have been sought, but
that's not my call.)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
that Walter is not in a
position to speak on behalf of Debian.
That's entirely reasonable. Perhaps I misinterpreted aj's message
somewhat. It seemed to me to be placing rather more emphasis on Walter
not being a DD.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333
here. What would it mean for d-l
to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
specification (B) for QA
purposes even if, technically, the document in question only uses A.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
as it did. I'm ready to move on and
forget about the GFDL. But your comment above isn't really about the
GFDL at all, but about how d-l interprets licenses.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this
somewhat.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
format.
Then what purpose did RMS have with the bit about publicly available
specifications and being editable with generic text editors? What was
he ruling out, if not things like word documents?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either
1: the work is distributable, or 2: distributability is not
relevant
to actually enforce their licenses
as written.
But the GR didn't say anything about any license other than the GFDL. I
don't think it's justified to claim that the developers who voted for
the GR were pushing a new philosophy for interpreting licenses without
explicit evidence.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL
, not a GR.
The GR says For the sake of the DFSG, we're going to behave as if our
generous interpretation of the GFDL is the correct one.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
. (Of
course, we run the risk of being accused of sour grapes)
But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing on each other
whatsoever.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing on each other
whatsoever.
A work can't possibly ever be free if it's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:14:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The GR says For the sake of the DFSG, we're going to behave as if
our generous interpretation of the GFDL is the correct one.
It's not a generous interpretation, it's a plainly false one
a profound effect on the interpretation that debian
developers would apply to the GFDL.
(Limiting this response to the question or orthogonality, leaving the
question of whether #1 is true or not to other subthreads.)
Yup.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333
someday, when I feel I have the time to commit to it, but
not at the moment.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:52:53PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
But the question of whether this is a use restriction
to. Under copyleft you can not distribute your work while at
the same time keeping it secret.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
Others have already made the point that the AGPL is not a narrowly
defined restriction -- that it's actually quite significant and
ill-defined under certain circumstances.
Narrowly
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:35:55AM -0500
Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
[...] users.
No. They provide a narrowly
. Public performance would
probably have to be defined in a way that takes into account the purpose
for which people are using the software (i.e., their primary purpose is
to use the software, as opposed to using the software only to facilitate
access to something else).
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500
The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like public
performance. I.e., if the work is publicly performed, source
distribution requirements would apply. Public
by the
FSF. If Debian have another opinion; would it not be clearer if Debian
use another word? something like Debian-free? so that people can
clearly make the difference.
The typical phrase is DFSG free.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED
) no one's making that argument about California. And to a
certain extent, a nations laws always are able to remove freedoms that
free software would like to permit, and there's not a lot we can do
about it. Let's not tilt at windmills here.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F
, anyway).
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of venue clause? I think the answer is
no.
If as Nathanael points out the clause were rewritten to be strictly
defensive, I would have no problem with it; but that's definitely not what
we have here today.
I agree that that would be better.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Yes, but (as you point out in your pine example) that can happen
regardless of license. There are some things we simply can't protect
against.
Indeed, but we can refuse to make it easier for a malicious actor or
more costly
that it should be
removed. I wasn't here at the time, but I've heard that the original
motivation for that clause was as a compromise to help get certain
software into Debian. Unfortunately, that software ended up being
non-free for other reasons, so it didn't work.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL
available, a
separate source probably isn't necessary. But it sounds like povray
source files would qualify as source, and therefore should be available.
Regards, and sorry for my english.
Your english was quite good. :)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6
that effective here is
being used in the sense of effectively, it's a security mechanism.
But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being
used in a way that requires the mechanism to be robust.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Typically that's the presumption (since object code is not source),
but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a
lawyer if it's important to you).
It's important to me as a maintainer
only disagree with them if we have to for the sake of
Debian -- in which case we're probably in trouble and should hire a
lawyer ASAP.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
out to be
accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far that deal with this
problem (if it is a problem) give up too much freedom in exchange. At
least, IMHO.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
about how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out
to be accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far
, I couldn't agree more.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
of shipping the firmware as a separate data
file, for example, would make it less likely that you get an unpleasant
surprise down the road. That way it would more clearly be mere
aggregation because your program could theoretically work with some
other (as yet unwritten) firmware blob.
--
Jeremy
a clarification letter to address those?
I'll leave that to those more skilled in legalese than myself.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
to use excerpts from your
documentation as context help, or something like that. If the licenses
are incompatible that may not be possible -- at least not without
jumping some legal hoops.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
reasonably in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
purposes
then only on a case-by-case basis with lots of discussion.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is a good metric, but not the be-all and end-all
of whether a work provides sufficient freedom.
I'm afraid I simply disagree here. I'm not willing to go to an author
and say If you write in machine code your work can never be Free.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think with these examples you're getting away from the preferred
form for making modifications definition of source.
Yes, I'm accepting or as close as is physically possible. Note
generated is about as relevant as it gets, short of a statement
by the author on the subject.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
version is what the original author would use to make a modification
to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
lossless
important that we not throw up our hands
and say Ahh! Corner case! whenever we find one, because we'd be
making GR's all the time. Especially given all the nit-picking we have
here; we'd likely need a GR for every license decision.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, some works under this license are free (for example,
one containing no credits but the copyright notice) and others are
non-free.
Wouldn't
the analogous clause in the GPL. You can't
include code (even optionally executed code) to suppress it, for
example.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
such blurb, rather than the combination of two different blurbs.
Personally, I consider this to be about the outside limit wrt freedom.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
there isn't one is that there's little reason for such a license. If
you want to give extra permissions, just use the LGPL. Why is it
important for your works to be GPL-incompatible?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
]
This is probably a good idea. But I don't know that it would resolve
the DFSG issues with the license, as there are other non-free provisions
that I suspect CC would be reluctant to fix.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
above)
I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing folks on d-l
that your license is Free.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
on fundamental
principles. If, however, you agree there (though perhaps not with the
rest) please explain where you think the disagreement shows up, because
we may be able to make sense of things.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force
attribution according
is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified without
the express written permission of its copyright owner.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
Hankins. You can find these pages on
http
freedoms the license grants, it is also a restriction on all those
freedoms? In which case DFSG #6 is completely redundant.
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
My considered opinion is that DFSG #5 and #6 are horrible blunders
. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified without
the express written permission of its copyright owner.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL
.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
idea to include an exception for resulting works other than
SoundFont files if you go with the GPL, but it could be tricky to nail
down exactly what you mean by that. IANAL, of course, so you should get
a lawyer's opinion if that's what you need.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
. This license may not be modified without
the express written permission of its copyright owner.
---
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
, reliability, or any other characteristic.
*
* BETA VERSION INCOMPLETE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE
* see http://math.nist.gov/tnt for latest updates.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
made available upon request from time to
time.
Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.
-
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
In my personal opinion, the moral rights idea is very disturbing.
I know it has its defenders, ...
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental
than that. The DFSG
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I don't know, I think that may be exactly what they wanted. After
all, the license is all about maintaining attribution -- i.e.,
ensuring that folks who see derivative works know about all the
people who contributed
backgroudn colors).
Ah! Then that can probably be resolved, but I do think it merits
explicit clarification by CC.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not clear what the extent practicable means here, but it
sounds like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from
the work if the author asks you to. That sounds like another
non-free point
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
| Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on
| the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It
Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book, and the original
author
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+ - The person who makes any modifications must be identified.
+ According to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable
+ restriction on modification. (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a
+ description
. (The
preceding paragraph, however, still ought to be rewritten to say what
it's supposed to mean.)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Taken literally, the
licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark
(via copyright) for them.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal turing machines.[1] (Hint: Think bacteria
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I
of
the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior
permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
copy.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
provides some, but not all, information about why we decided the
license
.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
it describes
it offends the idealist in me. I guess I need to work on my cynicism. ;)
So unless there are others who feel as I do, I'll go ahead and include
the DFSG section in the summary when I post it tomorrow.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED
.
To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or derivative of
the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior
permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
copy.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL
was invented
without much of a context.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
number is not necessary.
I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is a serious question: how does (DFSG 3) tacked on to the end
of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to refer to the basis
obligation to make
sure that our users aren't surprised by un-free clauses in licenses.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little
more formality in d-l summaries
requirement for small-scale or
non-commercial distribution. As always, it's best if the exception can
be dropped at the choice of the recipient, so as to maintain GPL
compatibility.
--- End debian-legal summary ---
(Not cc'ing, since you're evidently on the list.)
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED
is that you imagine a particular scenario,
and try to decide if the individual in the scenario can freely use the
software. Take a look at section 8 of:
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer
readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be
worded.
A stack of paper is not the preferred form
source version you have to go with a more
permissive license (e.g., BSD) or less permissive (i.e., not DFSG free).
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they
use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
preferred form for modification (i.e., source
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, he didn't actually write any of the quoted text...
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Someone brings license to d-l, short discussion ensues with rapid
conclusion
it with a
10' pole. It's hard enough talking to people about licensing issues
without first having to interest someone who probably doesn't care.
Though a polite ping, just to see if the licensor is interested, may
make sense.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6
this model they'd have to get permission for
this from contributors.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
, and I'm sure they can explain their reasoning much more
authoritatively than we can. They're the experts on GPL compatibility,
not us. If you send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and politely explain the
situation I'm sure they'd be willing to help you.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP
to upstream you might try contacting
the FSF for a position on the subject.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
complete copyright over, but looking at the bug
report it doesn't look like that's the case here.
(small world)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.html,
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 11:28, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
If I understand him, he's saying that the author of the plugin is
doing the work of pairing his code with the host (even if, in fact,
it will be paired many times and by many people) and that that's
as a
derived work.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the clause about compilations
was added as a way to *limit* what can be covered under copyright.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
away to land on a
sculpture, is the resulting art not a derivative of the original
sculpture because I wasn't there when it hit? How about if it's a copy
rather than the original?
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
