Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses
are explicitly allowed under the DFSG, although they are discouraged
for obvious reasons. The fact that some revisionists dislike them
doesn't make them
Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes
more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and
redistribution? Heck, if their ego is that demanding, why don't they call
the official version Brian
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:33:16 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
This seems to mean that I can redistribute an *unaltered* package
for 28 days from its initial release, then this permission suddenly
*disappears*, *unless* I
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:39:37 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes
more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and
redistribution? Heck, if their ego is
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:08:30 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
[...]
Mmmmh, would I be allowed to grab the Debian package, and
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest
release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days).
Older releases may be distributed,
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like
to
On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote:
A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the
official software being distributed timely and only from one source,
usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable
rammifications of their choice. I would recommend to
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
28 days of an upstream
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in
question is requiring a name change for even *unmodified*
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:27 +0100, I wrote:
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
far as it
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there
is already an icewm, so I
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is it ?
It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the
author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is it ?
It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
place. Is
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest
release with a reasonable delay from its
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think this would require a package name change. Any other opinion
on that?
That is what it looks like to me. Also, this clause
2. Altered versions must be clearly and explicitly marked as such,
and must not be misrepresented as being the
On 27/04/07, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
of this software (ion, ion3, etc.), must provide the latest
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:26 -0400, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 27/04/07, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28 days
of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to commit to
that, and certainly the package would have to remain unreleased.
So I think this would
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28
days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to
commit to that, and certainly the package would
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:39:57 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28
days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian
29 matches
Mail list logo
