I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would
support, that actively encourages use of free platforms;
and consequently restricts proprietary platforms.
While GNU/Linux is the dominant server operating system,
it lags on the desktop. Many of my colleagues who were
just a few years ago
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 2:59 AM, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org
wrote:
Le vendredi 25 novembre 2011 à 12:04 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
I understand that it's traditional for Free Software to impose
restrictions primarily as a condition of distribution;
Exactly, they're conditions
I'm looking for a license that discriminates against proprietary
platforms. I'm open to any specific effects that may do this, subject,
of course, to what is consistent with Debian's values.
I'm pretty sure that the above stated intention is not compatible
with software freedom.
By
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:35 AM, Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org
wrote:
This definition of Major Component may include non-free binary blob in
non-free kernel modules. For example, ethernel device driver, HDD RAID
driver, 3D Video driver, ...
If the work requires a particular non-free
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote:
I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly
not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' l,
definition as well.
The GPL
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:11:29 + Simon McVittie wrote:
The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must.
My summary is somewhat similar: please just use the GNU GPL,
and nothing more restrictive than that (I don't think the
- Original message -
From: Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com
To: license-disc...@opensource.org
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:38:20 -0500
Subject: a Free Island Public License?
Please find for your amusement and hopeful commentary
a different take on what it means to be Free Software.
FREE
On Sunday, December 04, 2011 3:55ser PM, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org
wrote:
Perhaps they should be moved to 'contrib' category, because they
interface non-free web-services. Debian's 'main' repository seems not
the right place for any such web APIs.
...
How far down this line until it
On Monday, December 05, 2011 10:51 PM, Andrei Popescu
andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Lu, 05 dec 11, 21:55:28, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to
work with the Debian distribution, but which require software
outside of the
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
What happens if my application gets smart, it looks first
for the proprietary dynamic link library; and if it isn't
there, it uses a web service wrapper for that library? Would
this move an application from contrib to free?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently
visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice,
and (2) tells the user that
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011, at 09:36 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
I'll mention, again, that this forum is not appropriate for general
discussion about licenses in the absence of an actual existing work that
is proposed for (or already in) Debian.
Hi Ben.
I'm working to open source a medical informatics
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 02:28 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
The critical aspect here is whether author attributions are
required to be preserved in the material, or also in the ALNs.
Retaining them in the material is clearly reasonable, but I
don't believe that forcing them to be present in the
Jeff,
Thank you for thoughts on this. Pursuant to Ben's request,
the discussion of this hypothetical license (well, a 2nd pass)
has been moved to license-disc...@opensource.org
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07871.html
Best,
Clark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 06:10 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
if you and the other contributors are not worried that your works
will be used in proprietary derivatives, it may be most simple to
take extremely liberal licenses, like the Unlicense, or to explore
the way the Translation Project
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 07:41 PM, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
My biggest concern is that since it allows for small modifications,
what would protect us, as the original authors, from someone taking
our source, modifying a single line, then re-releasing under a
modified GPLv3 that says that
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
11 * additional restriction that results may published only if
12 * (1) the benchmark is unmodified, and
13 * (2) the version in the sccsid below is included in the report.
I think with professional legal assistance the intent
I have approval to release HTSQL (http://htsql) under the AGPLv3
license so long as it contains an attribution requirement as
permitted by section 7 of the GPL. We also plan to release some
other components of our RexDB work under a more liberal
permissive license with a similar attribution
I apologize, the repository is https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 04:31 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
I have approval to release HTSQL (http://htsql) under the AGPLv3
license so long as it contains an attribution requirement as
permitted by section 7 of the GPL. We also
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
https://github.com/tip-o-the-hat/fmn/blob/master/GPL-FMN-TERM
describes itself as an additional permissive term, but seems to
actually be an additional requirement.
Quite right. I was reading section 7 incorrectly and had
mentally
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
I am not sure your addition non-permissive term really follows
what is allowed by clause 7b...
...
Please note the word preservation.
You are correct. I apologize for the distraction. So that
I'm tracking an actual submission for
Raoul,
This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt:
then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members
for that reason, I don't think it's free
Clark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes.
Although you are not required to provide them your enhancements,
you are required to provide Internet2 licensing rights that are
not granted to others should you wish to make the source code for
your derivative work generally
Charles,
I'm not a lawyer, but this looks like a one-sided consortium
assignment agreement disquised as a BSD license. It's not
even remotely free software. Let's read the license.
| You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any
| enhancements to Internet2 or its contributors.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 05:27 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
| without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into
| a separate written license agreement for such enhancements
Ok. So, this language iss the one
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 02:09 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Now Petter had the idea to feed this into google translations,
using http://freetranslation.mobi and committed the result
back into the debian-edu-doc svn repository.
I don't think you can do this.
#1 Translations are
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012, at 01:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think this is a false assumption, the service itself required
creativity to implement, and the specific choice of word associations
in specific contexts is not algorithmic nor factual, but individual
calls by translation submitters who
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012, at 09:53 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not in the least. Releasing something under GPLv2+ means the
recipient gets to *choose* which version of the GPL they're
complying with, including when they create derivative works.
I've not studied GPLv2 at all, I was using GPLv3
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would rather suggest a license more in line with public domain
works, such as Creative Commons zero license, the SQLite public
domain dedication, or the GNU all-permissive license.
For software works, I don't think this group should
Linus,
So, it's my opinion that there are two core requirements for
free software: the license needs to be free and the whole work
must be included. What follows is my personal opinion, and
I'm not a lawyer, a representative of Debian Legal, or providing
any sort of legal advice.
Whole Work
Timo,
I'm not sure why a open source license wouldn't work?
In any case, here are some comments.
2.2. Duties and responsibilities of the Licensee
Through reasonable means suitable to the distribution medium
or method which is used in conjunction with a product containing
data or a
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 07:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
In addition, I'd like to note that's what CC0 is for, really. It has
some neat fall-back clauses that trigger in the event a jurisdiction
doesn't allow for public domain works as such, and also releases
database rights[1] which some
Francesco Poli has been a longtime subscriber to the debian-legal mailing
list. He has quite extensive knowledge about licensing, and is often the
first person to answer inquiries about new licenses sent to the list.
Not only that, but he reaches out to help you personally and does an
33 matches
Mail list logo
