permissions; they explicit said that you can remove the special
exceptions; which avoid such problems. But it does not seems the case
here.
Anyway it seems that the license remains free but is confusing...
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:56:51 +
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote:
If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not
removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default
it is not). But It seems then that this license might
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:42:17 +
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the
additional permissions. Where is that requirement?
To distribute derivative works
not seem to be compatible with the
GPL and could even be non free.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is the only way you can hope they reconsider
the inclusion of cdrtool.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
harm your reputation.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sofwares with GPL-only libraries?
Why the GPL should apply to such a sofware? If that reasoning is
correct; the GPL would be essentially the same as the LGPL.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and sometimes somewhat obscure language will cause more
trouble than it solve.
Another problem with the GPL is that it is mentioned that only the
English language version is valid while some law s(France ?) might
requires a contract to be written in the local language.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
rejected by Debian (I mean that have
really be rejected by Debian).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think
should be allowed and is nevertheless restricted.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/16/07, Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why someone will want to do that? To put DRM and at the same time to
provide someone with the possibility of bypassing them seems absurd.
Could you give a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think
should
in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:51:31 +0200 Olive wrote:
[...]
What make sense is what Debian considers free and as long as
the decision is taken according to rules we can say that Debian
considers it free.
*As long as the decision is taken according to rules*...
What do you
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Firstoff, please note that *packages* are accepted in main or
otherwise rejected. *Packages*, not *licenses*.
OK, but packages are accepted according to their license; when I say
that Debian accept a license I mean
the LGPL or under the GPL with an explicit
exception. Even if it appears that this exception is not useful; it
would at least have the merit to clarify the situation.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed
DFSG-free? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to
know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler.
For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote
in the
past would not be considered free anymore without violating the DFSG (or
vice-versa).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Olive wrote:
The persons who are entitled to take a decision (i.e. the ftp masters)
have decided that CC-BY-SA is free. Many people here say that
something is not suitable for main even though it has already been
decided otherwise by the persons entitled to take
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:36:49 +0200 Olive wrote:
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition
based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key
on their keyboard by mistake
this is a non free
restriction; not just that it is a restriction.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. There are known
example of things that are indeed DFSG-free but were declared non-free
by consensus on debian legal (the GFDL without non modifiable section
is an example).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed DFSG-free?
If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It
would make our lives on this list much
this
should be investigated.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
parties to
this License.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
holder; since it is not Debian who have put these additional
restrictions (and the copyright holder cannot violate the GPL).
Of course if these extar terms make the software non free then it is
another problem.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
?); for a software which is not GPL. Maybe Debian could put a
notice to warn the user that the software isn't GPL to avoid confusion.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is rather popular so I hope one of you know more.
If (some of) these fonts appears to be really free, it might be
worthwhile to include some of them in Debian.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is a recording of a an
instrument, once again the music is not really modifiable.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to consult your lawyer).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... *license* cannot prevent you ...
Excuse this misleading mistake
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to encryption) worldwide but not for countries just under US embargo.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. The first thing to do is to ask clarification
from the upstream author.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
will probably point out some more knowledgeable people than the
juge with a lot of arguments not understandable (so that ordinary people
cannot comment them); while the initial jugement is clear and
understandable by anybody. He has already do that when a geman court did
enforce the GPL.
Olive
such documents.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset
qualify
for the main section still qualify for the main section.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of this clause would
discourage to use the software) not an essential freedom.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be moved in the non-free
section).
You are in fact showing the absurdity of such litteral reading.
Obviously GFDL simply means that you cannot prevent a user who have
received a copy of a GFDL to exercice his rights.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
not fully understandable by openoffice, but
from my experience this is only a very tiny proportion of word documents
using some special feature like macros, etc.).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
That's not bending or twisting the license; it's merely confirming a
straightforward interpretation.
If you say that, the document in question will not be under the DFSG
anymore. I don't agree that the straightforward interpretation say that.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
thought was
correct) is as wrong as choice 3.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
authority on the meaning of a
license is the Belgian court (I am from Belgium)?
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the official value of pi. pi
is transcendental and thus irrational and connot be written with a
finite number of decimals. If you only need an approximation, then you
have to choose your approximation according to your need. For some
calculation the value 3 might be sufficient.
Olive
the complete source code of the document. The
situation is somewhat similar of a public domain binary only software
with source not available. Such softwares will not be regarded as free.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
); you can
also use the -l LaTeX option. Could you tell what the document is so
that other people on this list might try. Have you tried yourself? Have
you be in touch with the author (explaining the problem)?
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
.
By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate
the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly
magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...)
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of
Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above it is reasonable is true[0], the following
authorized in the DFSG, we
cannot argue that code reuse is an essential DFSG-freedom unless this
clause is changed.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... Not a Contract ...]
I do not see why you object to this theory.
Go ask Barnes Thornburg LLP. [O]ne of the Midwest's largest law
firms says that
The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component
contract.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/18/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the following links might interest you.
Yeah.
All complain about the GPL are dismissed one after the other.
http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
Here the judge rejected
Patrick Herzig wrote:
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
As I have already said in a previous message
) has declared the GPL legal. See
http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
what would you like more?
P.S. You know this article since I read a comment of you about it. You
were saying that the juge was wrong. I wonder what is right for you...
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Frank Küster wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation
Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
article. A particular german court has spoken.
Yes a court has spoken and has made an injonction to follow the GPL.
German courts follow German law... Germany cannot declare the GPL in
any other way.
Olive
. The court usually interpret contract as what a normally
educated people will understand. Exept a few technicalities (which are
of minor importance) the meaning of the GPL is perfectly understandable
by everybody. It seems to invalidate many of the objections made by
these people.
Olive
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I
have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not
agree with most of the posters.
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
[...]
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
share and change it.
[...]
When I say that, a lot of people (which I would call zealots)
First off, please stop calling people names. Even if you disagree
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:02:27PM +0400, olive wrote:
And this was my opinion: the idealogy of some people is in my opinion
have become excessive to the point of being harmful to free software. I
think that I have the right of saying that without being accused
is free or not and these
guidlines must be used to juge the freeness of a software. A lot of
zealots in this list just invent way to reject licenses they don't like
even if these complies with the DFSG; or invent some discriminations.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
it was a facile argument.
But if this argument is facile; please answer.
The other objections of the GFDL (DRM, etc...) is based on a bogus
reading of the GFDL.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a license written in Japanese is not free (besause you
usually must keep the license). So this claim amounts to say that for a
license to be free it must be written in English (or at least in a
language coded in ASCII or some similar code). This sound to be a
discrimination for me...
Olive
) (it
is in the spirit of the license). I agree however that this unclear; and
I think it is worthwhile to ask clarification to the upstream authors.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
There is no rule which say that every bits of a file can be
modified; but there are law which says that you must be able to
use your freedom.
I'm not sure what else you can
yours.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but
it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow
in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply
because we think
Walter Landry wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination
and in the description about program; anyone with a
good dictionary will know that a political text is not a software. If
Debian want to change this, they should change the DFSG and make that
clearer; but maybe they do not have the majority to do that.
Olive
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
MJ Ray wrote:
Olive,
Sorry the previous point was confused. I think the PP was maybe trying
to explain that FSF does not claim FDL is a free software licence (and
also why they do not think all modification is important) but iDunno.
It tell that freedom to modify is not important
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of
venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a
clearer difference between small and big problems.
Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do
project have done (with the exeption of GFDL which is not ideal): GNU
software are (L)GPL but consider as acceptable other licenses.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. With these absurdly strict policies, Debian eventually does not
agree with itself: it's own logos cannot be modified! which show that
these policies were not what Debian want at its creation.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
opinion; would it not be clearer if Debian use
another word? something like Debian-free? so that people can clearly
make the difference.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having multiple points of view damages the free
software
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
free. Do you really believe that
many people will be motivated to create a free alternative of an
OSI-certified license; which is considered free also by the FSF? When
people speak about free software; they refer to the FSF or to the OSI,
not Debian.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance
by the foreign tribunal and if the
issue is not controversial it is normal that you will condemned. In the
specific case of the Adobe license, which basically let you do anything
you want, I do not see how you can non controversially break the contract.
olive Anyway even without this choice
cover only what is
normally expected for the software by a normal user: it does not say
that you can sue the person who have sell you the software for any bugs
it may contain.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:12:55PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Non-warranty clause are illegal in Europe. However the warranty applies
olive only in the case of commercial transaction. I am not sure you can claim
olive any warranty for a software that you have downloaded
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
I mean you have to; being
. The only thing that it really
restrict is suing Adobe in another country; but that does not seem to be
a problem.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from Massachuset to California so that
this argument seems doubly flawed.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
choice of venue free or
open source.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to have a huge patch which transform a
software into another unrelated software will probable violates the
license anyway: a judge might conceively decide that such a patch is
not to be considered as a patch in the sense of the license).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
never had any answer. So I ask again. If something has been already said
about this specific question (why the difference between the original
advertising close of the original BSD licence and the GFDL), please give
a reference
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-bitstream-vera/ttf-bitstream-vera_1.10-3/ttf-bitstream-vera.copyright
)
Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with
the DFSG?
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Måns Rullgård wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold
that he have himself
downloaded and modyfing the software since the GPL does not apply to him
anymore. I don't think this is a price that is worth paying...
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ask
for the sources?
--
Thadeu Cascardo
I will reply my own message in response to Olive and Joey Hess.
That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning
about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not
following them by the word may be mere toleration
96 matches
Mail list logo
