On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
Francesco is not a lawyer,
I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message (The usual
disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD.): I cannot understand why you seem to have
such fun
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a
sufficient disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice.
There are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice
by those who not certified by the Bar Association within
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a sufficient
disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice. There are laws,
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the
Steve Langasek wrote:
WTF, seriously? Reading this makes me want to go write some new code,
license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no
legal force.
Not non-free, just incredibly goofy;
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the choice is between continuing to discuss without that acronym
spelled out in full every message, or eliding it as understood, I
far prefer the latter.
Meh. This twisted statement contains at least one error. The intent is
discussion without spelling
* Francesco Poli:
Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis. We already have to,
because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
very common.
Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee.
* Steve Langasek:
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered further
restrictions within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
On Sunday 01 July 2007 00:24, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a sufficient
disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice. There are laws,
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
certified by the Bar
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:33:55 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Francesco Poli:
Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis. We already have
to, because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved
are very common.
Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:20:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
[...]
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
[...]
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
display Appropriate Legal Notices;
* Francesco Poli:
To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.
SHING GPL ?
Sun HP IBM Nokia Google, major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:
| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
* Santiago Vila:
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+ licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
+
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 00:24:58 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
Francesco is not a lawyer,
I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message (The
usual disclaimers: IANAL,
Hi all again,
along with the GNU GPL v3, the final text of the GNU LGPL v3 has been
also published on 29 June 2007 by the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt
The only changes with respect to the second draft (released on 28 March
2007) seem to
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following.
The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work.
I receive work A and want to create a modified work based
Hello,
does the compat matrix for draft3 http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq still
apply to the released version of LGPLv3?
If it does it could cause quite some pain, since LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
Francesco is not a lawyer, [...]
I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message [...]
Francesco... as I've said on this
On Sun, Jul 1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
If it says version N or later, we should of course point to the
*earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
I don't understand this of course, nor do I understand how the file we
point to relates to the
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on the
matter.
Border-line does not mean that it *fails* the DFSG, but that it's
*very close* to fail.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
* Santiago Vila:
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:43:27 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...]
In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
Work B is the work based on the Program referred to in the first
sentence of Section 5:
| You may convey a
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:40:24 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on
the matter.
Border-line does not mean that it
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true.
AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in compiled form, the
GPLv2 insists that the libraries the program
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0700
I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a DFSG
issue.
The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO. If you have a
problem with what it's trying to do, you won't like it (the goal is
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:22:30AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a
sufficient disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice. There
are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
Firstoff, I'm not sure the BSD license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
4-clause BSD.
Currently, it is not, but it was. See Bug#43347.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 01 July 2007 09:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
But do we really want to license everything which is GPL version 2 or
later under the GPL version 3?
And how do we discriminate between GPL version 2 or later and GPL
version 3 or later?
If it
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less
work for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to
lots of packages) who have to update the copyright file every time
license changes.
This reason doesn't make any
Lots of questions since I last posted... lost of people getting testy. Can't
do much about that, but I will try to explain a few things based on what I
know from law school. First up, there is a pretty well established definition
for what constitutes legal advice. It can be phrased as:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:31:00AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law,
although
I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in
the EU than the US, since these no practice without a license laws are
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice.
There is, however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for
anybody representing someone else at trial to be legally trained. The
title asianajaja (one of the Finnish terms referring to
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
No. Section #6 only applies to components that link with the original
or modified versions of the Software. It doesn't apply to derived
works.
I am afraid I am not following you.
Section 6c of the QPL v1.0 restricts your
Le dimanche 01 juillet 2007 à 00:24 -0700, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, IANAL is not a sufficient
disclaimer. Nor is saying this is not legal advice. There are laws,
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
certified
Hello all,
I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
Gentoo logo.
And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork
license is available at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml
I'm asking about this because Gentoo logo have two
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:36:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
I cannot see how you can say that the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you
don't apply section #6.
How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6?
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
respect to the covered work,
This clause is
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[...]
I will try to explain a few
things based on what I know from law school. First up, there is a
pretty well established definition for what constitutes legal
advice. It can be phrased as: particular courses of action in
response to
Steve Langasek wrote:
If I go to the effort of writing
This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in
Chris Waters writes:
All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
infringement).
Explain, please. There have been a number of copyright complaints
filed (in Germany and the US) over GPLed software.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
against passing oneself off as an attorney.
Yes; Finland, Sweden and Estonia are apparently the only EU countries that
have
no
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
GPLv2.
No, it's different from GPLv2 2c only in that it's extended to
interactive user interfaces instead of just programs that read
commands
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:59:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
Hello all,
I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
Gentoo logo.
And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is I am afraid it cannot a definite answer?
It does not even seem to express certainty...
(I am not a professor of English)
The usage of I am afraid that assertion in English has changed.
At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
Gentoo logo. And if so which conditions those packages need to meet.
Gentoo logo artwork license is available at
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml
I'm asking about
On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[...]
I will try to explain a few
things based on what I know from law school. First up, there is a
pretty well established definition for what constitutes legal
advice. It
46 matches
Mail list logo
