On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:41:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:09:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why doesn't it matter? If I've been sued because of something I've actually
done that infringed the license, then surely the DFSG and Debian shouldn't
be concerned
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wesley J. Landaker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as
something involving the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified
England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the
copyright holder's expense
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified
England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Poole
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
loss at all.
I think that Debian would very much
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:54:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
say if you use my software
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
have that freedom[1]. [...]
[1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
and a vaguely interesting note is:
* actually suing based on the license might be complicated by a
choice of venue
That you can argue the latter is analogous to a fee isn't really
very interesting. That some people are concerned
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And what about societies without money? fee does NOT equal money.
Your common knowledge is not my understanding ...
Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which societies without money are
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free,
except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free.
Got a reference for that?
GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the
subject of
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:09:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why doesn't it matter? If I've been sued because of something I've actually
done that infringed the license, then surely the DFSG and Debian shouldn't
be concerned with that (other than the question of whether what I've done is
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last
resort, and the only other options we
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Two different analogous licenses might be:
By distributing the covered work, you agree that the copyright holder
can sue you for violations of the license.
If you distribute the covered work, the licensor agrees not to sue you
in any
MJ Ray wrote:
I'll let the PP answer for himself, but mention that money can be seen as
a trick and you can read more about that view in Robert Tressell's book The
Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist, which is PD at Gutenberg; and also that
local exchange trading schemes exist, but would it make
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
No, punting to a GR [...] ends up with -legal folks complaining that
the resolution doesn't make sense.
I think that most are reasonable and do that only if the resolution
includes no explanation.
One of the
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:55:43 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
still not a *good solution* for deciding these
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
[...] would it make something any less
a fee if someone can trade their work as payment?
N.B. the idea that trading agreement to copyleft is a substitute for fee
payment (i.e. that the basis for copyleft licensing is a quid-pro-quo
Hi,
Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 02:45:07 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be
denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies
only to countries following author rights doctrine instead of
copyrights, I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this
Thomas Weber wrote:
No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty
from
1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely
that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed
in Belgium. Additionally, you might
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise
demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something
more
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
(mostly) notwithstanding.
From the summary:
If the parties, one or more
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
(mostly) notwithstanding.
From the summary:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified
England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the
copyright holder's expense :-)
Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ...
What
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:40:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because
you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and
have no obligation to provide source.
You're *not* giving up the right to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns writes:
[...] And as far as the actual effects go,
I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:25:41AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Non-developer, non-maintainer, non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from
being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned
about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect
people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis
with counter arguments, come
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO,
you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your
patent rights.
You're aware
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
have that freedom[1]. [...]
[1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the right to not be
sued in a venue where I have no legal presence.
Err,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO,
you need to argue the same thing
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:30:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Obviously (I hope), I don't consider you to be inexperienced in free
software development, [...]
To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what its
contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:01:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:07:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition
of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open
source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll
distribute
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you,
but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with
people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close
enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal checklist:
[...]
In the example Don presented, of the Debian star maintainer removing
some output from the Debian star package, that the star upstream claims
constitutes a copyright notice, then there are the following options:
[ rather
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstream
maintainer of one package in
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The troll checklist:
Heh. Free advice: the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD,
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last
resort, and the only other options we currently have a ftpmaster
decides and it's obvious to pretty
Anthony Towns writes:
Uh, dude, IANAL is a way of indicating that you may not actually have
a clue what you're talking about because it's all just amateur opinions.
Once upon a time -legal used to be littered with it; now days the concept
that regular posters to -legal might be mistaken seems
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:53:11 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what
its contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our users
and the free software community, but ultimately, as far as Debian's
concerned, the first and
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:01:24 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition
of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and
open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software
we'll distribute in
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 23:08 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to
individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those
who actually set this
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
loss at all.
I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever)
On Jun 2, 2:15pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster
did not approve this,
Er, isn't that what AJ's closure message *is*?
It most certainly is.
Pawel
--
(___) | Pawel Wiecek - Coven / Svart
Since it was requested, allow me to put forward a simple example of a
case where choice of venue coupled with choice of law is suboptimal.
Star is licensed under a modified CDDL license, which specifies
Berlin, Germany as the choice of law and venue.
If the author of Star decides that the Debian
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
solution to the distribution of a Debian
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue
you in a court that works by a set of rules that I'm actually
comfortable with. You
Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 00:33 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a license meets the DFSG
isn't particularly useful information, and is even less so when that
poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue.
You really can't refrain, can
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue
you in a court that
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has
incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the
license under 6.1,
He could claim the license is terminated under 6.1, but presumably the
Debian
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing that out
of maliciousness or a genuine. And as far as the actual
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the author of Star decides that the Debian maintainer has
incorrectly removed a copyright notice,[1] he could terminate the
license under 6.1,
[...]
Should someone be willing to
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian does accept the CDDL as a free license (at least when the
choice of venue is Berlin).
Indeed; I wasn't aware of the CDDL ever being accepted in main; had I
paid more attention to it, I would have
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In
[...]
Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the
ability to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue
you in a court
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In
[...]
Since
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as
something involving the transfer of money. If it isn't, then the GPL
is also non-free, by the
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
If it isn't, then the GPL
is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries
from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:18:56AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
If it isn't, then the GPL
is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that
is not yours, there are two possible outcomes:
* You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on the
case. If you go to the jurisdiction where you are being
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't really matter if I'm doing
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you get sued and convicted as a private person in a jurisdiction that
is not yours, there are two possible outcomes:
* You try to defend yourself, and might win or lose depending on
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
for not complying with debootstrap's license, and they find that you've
infringed the license, it doesn't
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 02:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern
is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it,
and nothing Bad will
You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because
you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and
have no obligation to provide source.
You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without
distributing the corresponding source,
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL
have never been accepted in main.[1]
star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...]
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1]
star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
star |
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
CDDL have never
Anthony Towns writes:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions/
--
ciao,
Marco
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works
* Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070602 19:14]:
It's not like there aren't DDs who feel that it isn't DFSG free; Steve
Langasek and myself have consistently argued against it, and I doubt
we're the only two.
Count me in. I don't feel comfortable with choose-of-venue at all.
reopen 350624
thanks
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster
did not approve this, because the work when originally
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:12:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster
did not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions/
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:12:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:13:56AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice
of venue is in place.
That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
How you feel about a license isn't any more important than the other
people's feelings that happen to be opposite to you. The above isn't
analysis, it's grandstanding.
My mistake; I assumed the references I provided earlier to the
analysis done in 2005
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases.
Contracts and licenses in general short-circuit the normal determination
of rights under common
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am sorry for not being clear enough: I meant to refer to the *thread*
that started from your message, not just to your message.
I now realize that, unfortunately, the rest thread was on the next month
and hence is not
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from
-legal
I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion.
See
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:13:25 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections
from -legal
I don't think that this is an accurate
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:38:50 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...]
2. The GFDL: [...]
FDL, please. It's not GGPL.
Even if you may (rightfully) consider that awkward, the FSF itself calls
the licenses GFDL and GPL.
Yes, it's not symmetrical, but
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:30:24 +0200 Sam Hocevar wrote:
[Cc:ing -legal, but please try to follow-up on only one list]
Choosing debian-legal...
I am having a chat tonight with people from the FSF.
You could have announced this earlier, then. :-(
Despite the
inevitable disagreements
Marco d'Itri wrote:
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines.
We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines.
I do not see other criteria
Josselin Mouette wrote:
I don't know about the US - and if this is enough to make a license
non-free, this will give another reason to resurrect the non-us archive
- but in other countries, the author could only sue the user in the
latter's juridiction (if the juridiction word ever makes
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, the typical argument is that giving up your right to have
cases tried in your local venue is a fee or royalty, and as such
violates DFSG ?1.
Just to underline this some more in case it's still not clear why this
is a fee, or even why if not
Don Armstrong wrote:
To underline, the following clauses in the CDDL are problematic:
9. MISCELLANEOUS
[...]
This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction
specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
(except to the extent applicable law, if any,
Nathanael Nerode writes:
with
the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Haven't heard much if any comment on this.
Fee shifting distorts the default legal environment in the United
States. European
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
with
the losing party responsible for costs, including, without
limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Haven't heard much if any comment on this.
Dunno what UK law actually is on this,
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
^^
Can this start a flame now? (I mean cdrtools = Jürg
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris.
This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it
Am 2007-05-24 19:44:38, schrieb Mike Hommey:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software
On May 24, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the
future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments
surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's opinion to the
FSF.
Do you mean the ftpmasters, don't
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
