On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:15:38 +0200 Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:46:06 +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, this is my attempt to rephrase clause 5d in a form that is weak
enough to be less harmful than clause 2c of GPLv2:
begin
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 20:50:27 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2... :-(
* Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070404 01:09]:
Calling Affero code proprietary is a pretty big stretch. Yes, there's a
clause in there which is a restriction on modification - so it's not
entirely free. But you still have to release the source to
modifications, source follows the
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:30 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of
the license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning,
i.e.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:40:12 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary
By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.
I was using
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of
a legal notice or author attribution permitting the attachment of
the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause. Can you give a
concrete
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think most courts do not rule on uncontested fact. This clause is
probably intended to
prevent EvilCorp(TM) from claiming that the work falls into that
class. The other party
is unlikely to contest that, claiming the work does fall
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license.
So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by
having the consumer
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:17:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
I cannot depict a specific scenario off the top of my head, but my
alarm bell rang as soon as I saw the word preservation coupled
with undefined (and hence vague) terms as reasonable legal notice
and
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, *when* I want a copyleft, I want one that *actually works*...
Exemptions for specific incompatible licenses should be left out of the
license text (so that who wants them can add them as additional
permissions).
*When* I choose the GNU GPL, I want to prevent my code
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to previous
drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-(
It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to freeness.
Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d in GPLv3draft3 is basically unchanged with respect to
previous drafts. It's worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2... :-(
[...]
I would like to see clause 5d dropped entirely.
I agree
The following is intended to be a compression of your comments down into the
most important points (generally, the areas you are concerned about),
to aid further discussion. As well as some responses to your comments. (I
had to manually fix the quoting, so apologies if I mess it up somewhere).
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
For the record: IANAL, IANADD.
My comments on the new draft follows.
I will send them to the FSF public consultation system RSN (since they
are accepting comments for only 60 days, starting on 28 March).
IANAL and IANADD either.
[...]
The entire draft can be found at the end of the message. I belive some
positive changes have been made, but some changes are for the worse.
Here is my analysis of the license. This is more a general analysis, but I
am trying to point out any DFSG-freeness problems I find.
I have no real
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is
Breaking new.
Barnes Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
-
Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the
GPL purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
thus evade
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses at all, but
rather provides that there shall be no price for
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at
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
applicable to anyone who receives its
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses at
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
Barnes Thornburg LLP on conspiracy.
--
Finally, the Response confirms that there is no alleged conspiracy,
as the GPL is allegedly public by its nature with hundreds and
potentially an unlimited number of programmers using the program.
(Response at 3.) The allegations support no more than a
debian-legal is not your personal blog. Stop spamming it with
off-topic troll postings already. If you want to rant or rave about
nutcases tilting at windmills, do it in an appropriate place.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The GPL give you *more* permissions than copyright law; so a
contract is not needed because the forbidden things by the GPL
are forbidden by copyright law anyway. If you break the GPL
you just can get sued because you have distributed/modified
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and
this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana
said.
But, that being said,
Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back.
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to
Olive, this guy is just a troll. Feeding him just seems to make him
waste more of Debian's bandwidth and my spambox. My advice is to leave
him be.
--
-
| ,''`.Stephen Gran |
| : :' :
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander
On 2/16/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I respectfully suggest to Debian and Software in the Public Interest,
Inc. to consider sponsoring a new glasses (let's not dilute $4 million
grant from OSDL) to crazy Eben, and let him take a brief look at ...
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
Because the deterrent
On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply doesn't apply.
Do we? I thought that a license was a contract.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply doesn't apply.
Do we? I thought that a license was a contract.
Everyone
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
What purpose do you feel calling a person blind or an idiot serves?
I don't think you are contributing anything to this discussion.
How about this:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43614.htm
(I am an Adjunct Professor at Duquesne
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a
* Nathanael Nerode:
I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limited
to,
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under
* Nathanael Nerode:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
Walter Landry wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating
between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible.
I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:44:21 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
This does raise another interesting point: there are laws in some
jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect
privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It
would be problematic if this clause
On 1/23/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
eliminate leaks, but it will
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:07:42 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
Here is version 3; it's also available on gplv3.fsf.org as well.
OK, I'm going to comment here first, so that I can get some feedback
from other debian-legal regulars.
Feel free to comment on my concerns.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
order to gain access to that work.
I wrote:
Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
technological measure which effectively controls access to any
work.
Walter Landry wrote:
Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
Well, no, but I think it is in fact true.
It is decided by external
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
can't be written (if you write software for an
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:49:09AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I think that effective does not mean perfect. Having a police
force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from
perfect.
A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software
is not imperfect. If I
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is
not imperfect. If I post my root password to this list, it is not
an imperfect but still effective security mechanism; it is useless
and defeated.
But, as you note below, that's
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
If you want to be charitable, you might say 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
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself.
quote***
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander compatible with itself
Alexander
Alexander The GPL is incompatible with itself.
Alexander
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A troll hunter.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]
Beside that,
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see
Hands Off Yorick!
On 1/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
protection
measure: that is to say,
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work
(17 U.S.C. 1201):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So here it is:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work.
I'm not sure how a program _can_ require authority of a copyright
holder? Did you mean The exercise
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
order to gain access to that work.
This is too broad. If I have a machine on
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:53:46AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective
technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution.
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any
way that suits their agenda, so effectively probably really means
pretends to ...)
It meansin effect here.
regards,
alexander.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:58:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
technological measure which effectively controls access to any
work.
Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
It is decided by external
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection
scheme, then, well, it's not
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:52:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
Hey legals, drop this link
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively
to poor Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Matthew Garrett:
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?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
or other legal authority supporting his stance on the
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html
Pls read that message in its entirety (and also
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,
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one?
regards,
alexander.
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative
works, it causes endless trouble.
That
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using work based on the
Program to re-use that
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.
Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of this
would make Debian call the
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...}
What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now compatible.
The OSI approval (I just pray that
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:05 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Glenn!
You wrote:
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and
share copyrighted
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:13:18 +0100 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it
from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy
the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place.
You need not require recipients to copy the
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:26:47 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm in favor, in principle, of being allowed to make anonymous
changes.
So do I!
The right to make anonymous changes is indeed an important one.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a
system
Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:
- code reuse isn't important (often thinly veiled as eg. you don't
really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it), and
- if you really want to reuse
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Have you heard argument three?
A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically
prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free
(while discouraging it). Patch clauses
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective
technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution.
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work
(17 U.S.C. 1201):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though. I'm not sure a court would have much difficulty in
allowing
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 16.[11] There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
| applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright
| holders and/or other parties provide the Program as is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though.
El lunes, 16 de enero de 2006 a las 09:07:42 -0800, Don Armstrong escribía:
The Complete Corresponding Source Code for a work in object code form
means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile,
Good, now even if someone codes a piece of firmware directly in machine
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:49:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about binaries via BitTorrent, source via HTTP? BT would be more
capable than HTTP for many projects' binaries, and HTTP more capable for
source, where a lot
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
