Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would
be liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and
someone sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
the FSF
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them about potential problems like this instead of relying
on mailing lists posts.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
broadcom with this analysis,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
provided. Since the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:00:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:17:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a
* Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060830 17:40]:
I'm not a lawyer, but my take on this is that if someone ships you a
BLOB under the GPL, you have the legal right to demand sources from
him.
I think only copyright holders can demand something. If you distribute
something only created by you
Toni Mueller wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 30.08.2006 at 09:27:21 +0200, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for
distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
They are the team responsible for vetting the
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luk Claes wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6c557439-9c21-4eec-ad6c-e6384fab56a8
[ 1 ] Choice 1: Release etch on time
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
[ 2
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute these 53
BLOBs *at
22 matches
Mail list logo
