=1.1.2.4hideattic=0only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3
ought to make it pretty clear)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
(Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
It hasn't.
Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued?
I
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
(Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
It hasn't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
in the US.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the US.
You'd need a server in a jurisdiction without any patent law. This issue
is not just limited to the US.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala.
If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear
a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment
Dissident lala.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subtly modified.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of freesklyarov.org fame chooses
as venue for its licence disputes.
It's where Sun are based, so it's hardly surprising.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
within
a license or not. They're already dishonest - who's going to stop them
lying about the license contents?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
) - or the licensor is correct in their
lawsuit, in which case choice of venue merely lets them defend
themselves more sensibly.
Discriminating against choice of venue has no significant cost to evil
licensors, but hurts wronged licensors.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes, I'm entirely
happy with you not being permitted to copy the software. It strongly
implies that you're not competent to agree to any sort of license
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be saying that I can agree with the law even though I
completely disagree with it
Please quote the section of the license that states that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
be controversial.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Elliott Finley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on packaging a some software that uses this license. Is
this an acceptable license from a debian perspective?
Looks like 3-clause BSD, which is absolutely fine.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it means that the licensee is obliged to agree that a fact may be
true.
And if that fact is not agreeable to me, I may not copy the software?
If you're unwilling to agree to truth statements, then yes
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problematic kind of trademark clauses is the one that says you
lose your _copyright_ license if you use our trademark in ways we're
not happy with.
Why is that any more problematic than the 3-clause BSD license?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
Macallister Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problematic kind of trademark clauses is the one that says you
lose your _copyright_ license if you use our trademark in ways we're
not happy with.
Why is that any
discussing your concerns would work better?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be
interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that
context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a
position to speak on behalf of Debian.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
back. The
DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on
behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been
potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I
do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on
top of that.
As already discussed elsewhere: how do you feel about the 3rd clause of
the 3-clause BSD license?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
actually get
involved in Debian before making demands of its leadership isn't
unreasonable. Alternatively, it could be phrased as a request.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that, which aj totally dismissed.
The post was phrased in an unnecessarily hostile manner. There should be
no expectation for people to usefully respond to that sort of thing.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
not?
You're asking me to repeat the entire
Michio Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)
Nngh.
Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example
only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently complicated.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't
looks astonishingly bad?
So the real reason
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:08:22AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's odd. The description of -legal is Copyright, licensing and
patent issues, whereas -project is Discussions about non-technical
issues in the project.
Handwaving. Until you anti
is on -project, so I think it seems reasonable
enough)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as
whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide
decision rather than a legal one
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all a
heads up, you would be soon enough.
Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DFSG?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:08:03 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
While I won't actually try to use this as an argument of fact, the
majority of people I've spoken to about this don't feel happy about
declaring the QPL non-free.
I'm not happy either
the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
The source code distributed need not include anything that is normally
distributed with the compiler, kernel and so on
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
recently suggests
that somebody's opinion is changing.
(The fact that the FSF declared the QPL a free software license really
quite a long time ago may offer some insight into who's changing here)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
Whatever gave you the idea? The DFSG
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that
we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what
aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much
the same end result
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
harp over the ambiguous usage of software rather
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long
time.
You
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The fact that different people mean different things when they say
software was enough for us to stop using the word software where the
distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should
either get people to agree
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it's at least one of the reasons both licenses are considered non-free.
(Despite us still shipping a moderately large body of work under both in
main)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
guidelines.
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free
software (a term initially defined by the FSF
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seriously don't think[0] so. The mentioned violation of the DFSG also
applies to the GNU Freedoms.
You think wrong. DFSG 1 does not require any piece of software to allow
commercial sale as an independent component.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
a
restriction on modification, but I'm not sure if it would be considered
an excessively onerous one.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
stop
of the resulting document without t=
he
original author's (or authors') permission.
That's fine.
The others are requests rather than requirements, so there's no problem
there. In summary - I'd be surprised if anyone filed RC bugs against
stuff under this license.
--
Matthew Garrett
?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
We've seen frivolous suits against software alleging patent
infringement. Since the only way we can protect our users from these is
to stop distributing software, should we do so?
I do not propose we do anything to stop
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
But downloading a piece of software from Debian opens me up to the
possibility of frivolous lawsuits from the copyright holder, something
that did not occur before. How is that not a cost?
Why did it not exist before? Your
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen
anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the
suit could claim that their local venue
,
but why not news of a security vulnerability that state agents
are exploiting? Anonymity has benefits for freedom.
He was discriminated against by his government, not by any sort of
software license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is you
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
that it's any sort of freeness issue.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c,
libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c.
These should be referenced in debian/copyright.
BSD with advertising isn't GPL compatible.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
sued in an arbitrary country*.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, then why not?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the social contract.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are enforced.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is that it potentially
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
licensor gets
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
jurisdiction, no harassment results.
Eh? They can
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
impression that it was generally accepted.
I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held.
Can
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
unlikely to deter them.
The point is that the cost *for me* of defending
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
isn't very realistic.
No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an
insurance policy
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be
sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
There are the DFSG freedoms
is not entirely under the GPL yet)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
is a group that is protected by DFSG#5.
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
regardless of license conditions.
--
Matthew
of poor people.
And, hence, discriminate against rich ones?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
Debian has always been full of software
Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
been removed. Both provide the same amount
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
been removed. Both provide the same amount
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
How is one of these free and the other non-free?
In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already
do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so I
don't think
a problem - the DFSG don't require that
people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate
work.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
There's two main issues here.
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
I don't believe so,
We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
We had a GR
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify.
If there existed reasonable ways
?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
Yes; as noble a goal as is writing good, well
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent
with the functionality
is wrong.
Why do you believe we require source code for everything in main?
Because it's there? Or because we believe the recipients should be able
to create derived works and learn how the software functions?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
that it is an acceptable
(though borderline) form of source. Do you believe that this file should
be part of Debian?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
useful register names.
It's fairly easy to show that this is the case - the code is plainly
derived from NVidia's earlier (Xfree 3.3 era) driver and their open
source SDK, which did have useful symbolic constant names.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
resurrected flamewar.)
I'm asking you to be willing to accept the consequences of the opinion
you hold, which (in this case) is inevitably going to be some large
amount of irritation from other members of the project.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of source
code.
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Until that time, the prefered form for modification seems
or not. On the other hand,
if we accept my opinion on point (1), even if we need to include the
pov-ray models we are not required to build from them in order to
satisfy the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of source code
(it is found in the GPL text, as you know
is more interesting.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
remove your material instead.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:08:24PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
a) Remove the material concerned from the installation guide in woody
and sarge and get new versions uploaded to the archive. Apologise
profusely. Potentially still be sued.
d) Add
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:58:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Yes. And?
So you think it's acceptable to have a work in main, whose license is
if you're Debian, you're never allowed to remove this work, or I'll
sue you for an unrelated, already-fixed
constitutional delegation of
these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all.
Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of
people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in
themselves.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
and to RFCs, inconvenient
as that may be.
When did license incompatibility become a freeness issue?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 416 matches
Mail list logo
