Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

2005-01-10 Thread MJ Ray
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would seem to me that if you want to distribute a version of mozilla with a different default search, then it is reasonable to require that you do not call it mozilla or use any of their trademarks. I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because

Re: prozilla: Nonfree

2005-01-13 Thread MJ Ray
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be used at all commercially, assuming the common

Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?

2005-01-13 Thread MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote: I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders in Europe have to remove the original trademarks. I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-14 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...] Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange for permissions that I'm not sure are needed

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-19 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not far off that. You should only have to change it in fingers-of-two-hands places at most; anything else is a bug. At the moment, it has bugs. For example, it took a damn sight longer than 10 minutes (excluding new graphics) and still the blasted

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-21 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm not planning to develop the instructions document by interactive trial-and-error with you on debian-legal ;-) Fine, but at this time it's not easy to build a firefox-based browser that Mozilla Foundation would be happy with, even with reading

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-22 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [MJR sceptical that this sort of branding bug gets fixed quickly] To be honest (and I wrote the code in Bugzilla which does the reporting), that's more to prevent anonymous DOS, because they are very processor intensive. If you want to see them and

Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license

2005-01-22 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG? Yes, because I do not believe that it is a restriction on other software. A licence essentially

Re: new .deb was done

2005-01-25 Thread MJ Ray
ImageJ is a work of the United States Government. It is in the public domain and open source. There is no copyright. You are free to do anything you want with this source but I like to get credit for my work and I would like you to offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them

Re: Draft: Graphviz summary

2005-01-25 Thread MJ Ray
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] *D R A F T* Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0 I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my summary. Please indicate why: [ ] What a load of

Re: License of Open Solaris CDDL

2005-01-25 Thread MJ Ray
When you contacted debian-legal about this licence last month, the general opinion seemed to be that each case needed checking. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg2.html I think it is unhelpful of you: * not to remind us that you asked about this licence before, * not to find out

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
Steve Langasek wrote: I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...] That given was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses (was ' Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license')

2005-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the pet a cat licence. Nick wrote: So the question I was trying to ask was do we believe that

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
Mark Brown For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished - Francesco Poli So did I. Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you mean the long licence summaries? What would they have done?

Re: License of Open Solaris CDDL

2005-01-26 Thread MJ Ray
Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may sound off-topic first, but think about these future scenarios: They are actually that: future. By the time they occur, we'll probably have had CDDL 1.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.5.1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 ;-) Anyone can ask again when it's relevant. -- To

Re: License questions

2005-01-28 Thread MJ Ray
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/ When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like licenses and refused to create one. But: The author is well-meaning, but I think current law says his work is copyright and all rights reserved

Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?

2005-01-28 Thread MJ Ray
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives. Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first? I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service will

Re: License questions

2005-01-28 Thread MJ Ray
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He has now posted this at his website at http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/, frmo where the code is downloaded: Put a snap of it in the copyright and yes, I'd probably take those odds. ;-) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see

Re: License questions

2005-01-28 Thread MJ Ray
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Get him to put your IRC log in a LICENSE file in the tarball. That should be enough for most people, if you're comfortable with it. The LICENSE file in a tarball being more reliable than an email

Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?

2005-01-31 Thread MJ Ray
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, with program replaced by text, object code by typeset form, and with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)? It would be possible (see GPL FAQ

Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?

2005-01-31 Thread MJ Ray
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better? Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on their pages. Where is it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell. It does not seem to publish performance

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

2005-02-01 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to be don't mix patents and copyrights, but I havn't seen much of a case for that--it seems to say don't try to protect against patents via copyright, but copyright is all we have

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-02-01 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This modified version has been approved of by at least one list member[2]. I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently MIA from the New Maintainer queue. http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=medwards-debian%40sane.net Then

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

2005-02-01 Thread MJ Ray
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms seem extend software patents into places which don't have them yet, but do have software copyright. [...] That seems like a reasonable argument. However, I don't see how

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-01 Thread MJ Ray
Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be everything to everyone and that's why they don't work? Francesco Poli wrote: When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e. program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its (DFSG-)freeness. [...]

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-02 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It still doesn't seem to me like the programs are free or non-free, not licenses bit applies most of the time. Besides, most of the time we evaluate licenses, we do so without any idea of the original author's intent or beliefs (except as embodied in

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-04 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's just a case of multiple licenses, though; if someone asks is this free?, we need to evaluate the licenses applying to the program-- all of them, not just the most obvious ones. [...] Fine, see it that way if you like. I don't. If people post

Re: Why is choice of venue non-free ?

2005-02-04 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn L McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its debating user freedom vs free software developers freedom, to argue one is more valuable than the other is a chicken and egg argument. It's trying to balance the original developer's rights against derived work developer's rights too. I've been

Re: Authority and procedures of debian-legal

2005-02-06 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn L McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want it excluded from debian. [...] You think debian should be bound by a buggy derived project's decisions? For

Re: Why is choice of venue non-free ?

2005-02-09 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You treat the DFSG as a set of pesky rules to be weaseled around and dictionary-lawyered, instead of a set of guidelines to be followed. No, I don't. (Nice arguments these...) OK, to avoid your dictionary lawyering: To most

Re: Use of the Debian name for websites

2005-02-10 Thread MJ Ray
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] in light of the disagreements between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the GNU Free Documentation License being one prominent example[1]). That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're lazy, but free is

Re: Use of the Debian name for websites

2005-02-10 Thread MJ Ray
Josh King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL? Creative Commons? Something else? I think the usual advice is for simple contributions to be licensed under a permissive non-copyleft (like MIT/X11) and full manuals to be put under the

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt]

2005-02-11 Thread MJ Ray
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ... Thank you for writing a rebuttal, Glenn. I agree with

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-02-11 Thread MJ Ray
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The Mozilla team seems to be committed to supporting the Debian packagers in building both mozilla-firefox and iceweasel-browser packages from the same source base. Isn't this precaution enough? We know the Mozilla Foundation licensing

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt]

2005-02-13 Thread MJ Ray
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain to them why their behavior frustrate the Debian community. (But stop your blood from boiling first...) If you have the time, please go and do it. IETF have been broken awhile and I do not believe they are ignorant that:- * it is not

Re: [Fwd: Re: mplayer, the time has come]

2005-02-16 Thread MJ Ray
Please don't cc me or send me HTML duplicates (see also debian lists code of conduct). Thanks to Henning Makholm for replying already with some answers I couldn't remember. I agree with all of that post. Further, it looks like this doesn't need to be a native package. a. wrote: MJR wrote:

Re: [Fwd: Re: mplayer, the time has come]

2005-02-17 Thread MJ Ray
A Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you should compare mplayer and the win32codecs.sh which installs win32codecs to libdvdread3 and the installer which installs libdvdcss2 I've explained why I think that is not a good comparison. libdvdcss2 is not in the distribution because of fears that

Re: [Fwd: Re: mplayer, the time has come]

2005-02-17 Thread MJ Ray
A Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ideally, mplayer should have entered Debian some two years ago. This is not an ideal world. In this real world, mplayer is not in the archive, and my first priority is getting it in there. [...] OK, back to priority one: copyright-wise, your package looks

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

2005-02-18 Thread MJ Ray
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:04:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: php4's licence says may not be called but isn't may not ... a lot different to must not ...? I don't think anyone needs their permission unless it's infringing on their trademark. Clause 4

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

2005-02-20 Thread MJ Ray
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] However, conventionally, may not do foo is supposed to be parsed as (a) whereas must not do foo is usually parsed analogously to (b) - which makes them actually mean the same in natural English. Which convention specified that change in meaning

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

2005-02-20 Thread MJ Ray
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice unmarked trim. Try another tactic. [...] Is English your first language? Yes, born within 60 miles of Oxford, my English is as English as it gets, except when I talk dialect. Try another tactic. I find it hard to believe that any native speaker

Re: PHP non-free or wrongly named?

2005-02-21 Thread MJ Ray
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Having just reread your post again, I think I realise what you are saying. Because they wrote the 'condition' as Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission from

Re: Are Debian logos still non-free?

2005-02-22 Thread MJ Ray
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would I be correct in saying that as long as copyright is not infringed, it is fine to distribute art that is used as a trademark, as long as you do not use it as a trademark. As a concrete example, if I were to distribute 'foo Linux', that contained a

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-23 Thread MJ Ray
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-26 03:29]: See also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00521.html I've reviewed your arguments in the link above and see what you're saying; nevertheless, I can the summaries

Re: Are Debian logos still non-free?

2005-02-23 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Goldsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of that seems to have any connection at all with Debian GNU/Linux, and IMO seriously devalues the Debian name by inferred connection and/or approval. Actually, if they just had the rest of it, I wouldn't be so bothered and it's probably out of

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-23 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 + Matthew Garrett wrote: In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free. [snipped: although there are exceptions...] I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should find a way to

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

2005-02-25 Thread MJ Ray
, the copyright files are all linked from packages.debian.org now. If anyone thinks it's a good idea to generate indexes from copyright files, I'm happy to help, but I don't have a local debian mirror to play with. MJ Ray wrote: Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they have

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-25 Thread MJ Ray
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to hear your comments on the matter before I submit a bug report asking for the removal from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. [...] So you've already decided to submit a bug

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-28 Thread MJ Ray
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] debian-legal is not *the* place where it should be debated, where else could it be ? Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need a new list. [...] Now, not everybody installing Debian on their belief it is the distro most committed to

Summaries, was: handling Mozilla with kid gloves

2005-02-28 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote: Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already in main and check the copyright file. Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and again? [...] Maybe, but good/poor

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-28 Thread MJ Ray
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, debian-wankers, got it. I really didn't understand that until I read Josh's explanation. I don't read many Marco d'Itri spews, so I thought you were ranting. I was thinking of something a bit more like the short-term private lists that exist for short

Re: Summaries

2005-02-28 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote: Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than the DLSes give too. They say this licence is foo rather than giving recommendations for what you think is the most common want. I'm sorry but I

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-02 Thread MJ Ray
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we have very, very different ideas about the goals of free software. In my world, we ask for source code because the ability to modify code is fundamental to free software. I'm not quite sure how that works for you. I hope that you are never

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-03 Thread MJ Ray
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The odds are that we always have something that it is possible to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you think we need to worry about that and ignore upstream? Because taking upstream's

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-04 Thread MJ Ray
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output of a C compiler may be sufficiently

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-06 Thread MJ Ray
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html package. What do you think? Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221703 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Re: CC-BY license.

2005-03-09 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure. Alright, let me have a go

Re: The BitTorrent Open Source License

2005-03-09 Thread MJ Ray
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * The requirement to maintain a LEGAL file. I don't think this one is really a problem; it's similar to the GPL saying you must mark your modifications as such. This LEGAL file doesn't seem to say that we have to leave the contents we got untouched,

Re: CC-BY : clarification letter ?

2005-03-09 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But those cases are covered by Fair Use rights. You are always allowed to say Jeremy said ... :) or to put someone's work (and name) on a bibliography, or a footnote. Those are all fair use. Under English law, I'm only allowed to say Daniel wrote ...

Re: CC-BY : clarification letter ?

2005-03-09 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software. Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free, like prevent honest mention of your name outside authorship

Re: CC-BY : clarification letter ?

2005-03-09 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on Ray, you know that's now what I've been saying. Back to the post that started this thread. I want to add a clarification letter to fix the problem you just mentioned. Would you like to help me write one? I posted a proposal on this thread. How

Re: CC-BY : clarification letter ?

2005-03-10 Thread MJ Ray
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation. They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don't

Re: GPL for documentation ?

2005-03-10 Thread MJ Ray
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm not convinced that was solely so they could force copies of the GNU Manifesto to be prepended to everything. I'm pretty sure the need to offer bigger incentives to existing publishers, authors used to working in the old-fashioned publishing

Re: Combining GPL and BSD/CeCILL/whatever

2005-03-18 Thread MJ Ray
Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to get some clarifications on how to interpret GPL's derivations-must-also-be-licensed-under-GPL feature and similar demands in other licenses. Namely: [...] Please try http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first. My understanding is that

Re: Combining GPL and BSD/CeCILL/whatever

2005-03-23 Thread MJ Ray
Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I have a package that combines MIT/BSD-new code and GPL code, shall I include both license texts or simply replace the BSD text (save the copyright notice) with a GPL blurp? Include both, in my opinion. (And in case that's too easy, what if the

Re: Combining GPL and BSD/CeCILL/whatever

2005-03-24 Thread MJ Ray
Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This doesn't specify which parts were originally under which license but 1) it would be impossible anyway given that they're all mingled and 2) does it really matter as GPL insists licensing the whole bunch under GPL? Yes, it does matter, as you are

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-29 Thread MJ Ray
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is ALLCAPS NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE, ...in an HTML comment... Only because it's graphically separated, by color and inside a box, when the HTML is rendered. The HTML comment is trying to make explicit in the source what is already explicit in the

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-29 Thread MJ Ray
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [CC trademark clause] It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although not necessary universally unambiguous) in the graphical visualization that 99+% of people reading the page see. CC has explained clearly their position and we

Re: public domain

2005-03-30 Thread MJ Ray
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, well, now that the debate has entered into some strange parallel demension where facts no bare no relevance, I shall return to my lurker status on this list. Hope my comments were helpful to someone. I think both yourself and Andrew Suffield are

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-30 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it part of the licence, clearly your we all know is false. Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC license. It's not that hard. Then we

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-30 Thread MJ Ray
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the licensor has created a new version that does not include the comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license, but do

Re: Bittorrent licensing, take 2 [MPL and Jabber inside]

2005-03-30 Thread MJ Ray
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote to the BitTorrent authors about the new license for version 4, Thank you for doing that work. [...] Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL and

Re: Bittorrent licensing, take 2 [MPL and Jabber inside]

2005-03-31 Thread MJ Ray
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:35:03PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Yes, that would suck. The fault would be a mix of MPL's drafters including conditions that they could have known debian didn't support yet and our confusion about the mozilla licence soup. Why

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-31 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island test...;-) There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on the DFSG and

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-31 Thread MJ Ray
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=3DMJ Ray date=3D2005-03-30 22:15:15 + [...] I'm not sure about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along with statements relying on the US view of fair

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-02 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right? yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page. Should I not consider that faq? You should consider it as

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-02 Thread MJ Ray
I cover the FAQ question in reply to Marco d'Itri. Other questions: Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to choose the license they like for their own works. [...example...] Am I (the author) free in

Re: Creative Commons update and steps forward

2005-04-03 Thread MJ Ray
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following people have been proposed but haven't given a definitive yes or no: * MJ Ray I'm happy to be part of the group, but I am not sure what resources I am being asked to commit. So there will be a phone conference at some random time? I've

Re: cl-typesetting license

2005-04-08 Thread MJ Ray
Ingo Ruhnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sound free to me, since not the output of the library is required to confirm to it, but the interface which generates the input for the library. So to me it looks basically just like something like GPLs 2c section applied to the web. I think there's a

Re: pre-ITP advice?

2005-04-11 Thread MJ Ray
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, my question is, is it enough to quote the above in debian/copyright for this to go into main, or will upstream need to release a new version with the licencing clarified, or where to from here? Quote the email from Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:47:46 +0200 when

Re: STAR::Parser license quesiton

2005-04-12 Thread MJ Ray
Am I correct in presuming that paragraph #2 makes this only eligible for non-free? If not, what kind of license is this? I think that you are correct. -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0

2005-04-14 Thread MJ Ray
This is a comment on version 4 of http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html About debian-legal: I feel that this would benefit from making it clear who can make binding decisions on licensing. I suggest: The decision-makers are the ftpmasters (who are responsible for archive maintenance)

Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0

2005-04-14 Thread MJ Ray
Correction/clarification, after noticing a context problem: Anti-DRM clause - I think this is fine. I mean: I think that section of the summary is fine. [...] I would also find non-opensource.org editions of the BSD and MIT licences. s/find/prefer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0

2005-04-14 Thread MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote: Or, y'know, you could just go out and find the URL that works for you, and send it to me. Sarcasm isn't good for you. BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0

2005-04-14 Thread MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: About Creative Commons: I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but I do not feel qualified to write it. I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary

Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0

2005-04-15 Thread MJ Ray
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a cc license discussion list, and it is open. The decision process may use the discussions, at least in it there is talk about. I just reviewed a previous intervention of mine on that mailing list. There were references to raising something

Re: Bug#294559: A very permitive license.

2005-04-15 Thread MJ Ray
Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: equivalent to something in the public domain. That is, I want you to be able to use it to do whatever you wish without any sort of restriction or the hassle of keeping track of where it came from. OTTOMH, whether this is possible depends on where you are. In

Re: (DRAFT 2) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-15 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong. When using doxygen and similar programs, source and documentation are in the same file but they are not the same bits. You are wrong. There are systems like Mole for lisps which transform the source to render part of the documentation.

Re: Question about freeness of XyMTeX license [2nd try]

2005-04-20 Thread MJ Ray
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/15/2005 09:17 AM, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: %% Copying of this file is authorized only if either %% %% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and %% directory name %% (2) if you do make changes, %% (a)

Draft Debian and mplayer FAQ

2005-04-20 Thread MJ Ray
There have been some comments about mplayer, compared to ffmpeg and other packages. The discussion here seems to have cooled, so I have written a summary of the situation as I understand it. Is it accurate? Please send me comments and/or improvements (as plain text or patches, please). I'd also

Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]

2005-04-22 Thread MJ Ray
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So anyone publishing a (proprietary) book about a free software may be subject to a copyrigt infrigment? [...] No. You have overgeneralised it, so it's untrue, unsurprisingly. As I understand it, the situation suggested is a proprietary book which is clearly

Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]

2005-04-22 Thread MJ Ray
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Legally, I can't modify a glibc API and then paste my revisions into the glibc documentation, because my changes truly are a work derived from GPL material and can't be amalgamated with GFDL material. I You are totally missing

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-03-30 Thread MJ Ray
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree. Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are directed to software and cc are not. I'm not familiar with Italian, but at least in some other languages, this opinion has been motivated

Re: OFFLIST Re: More about GFDL

2005-04-24 Thread MJ Ray
Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I understand, the anti-DRM clause doesn't restrict any party from=20 selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software= distribution containing programs from several different sources. Any party can still

Re: Bug#309257: libpano12: patent problems

2005-05-16 Thread MJ Ray
Read more about the iPIX vs Dersch from FFII at http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/ipix/ The second link (contains patent titles) suggests that there is clear prior art. Interactive Pictures appear to be a tn.us corporation - does anyone nearby know whether any regulations forbid so-called patent

Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG

2005-05-19 Thread MJ Ray
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What terms could we accept? Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable? Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product must, at a minimum, first strip the

Re: Trademark license compatibility with GPL and/or DFSG

2005-05-19 Thread MJ Ray
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable? I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the technology. If the bluetooth driver was named harold

Re: License question about regexplorer

2005-05-22 Thread MJ Ray
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I think a bug should be filed immediately... Could we at least wait until post-Helsinki? There's a session on the DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the not-on-legal part

Re: removing the debian-legal website stuff?

2005-05-23 Thread MJ Ray
;summarised on Evan's page/a and a href=http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00031.html;reported on debian-legal/a./p -- MJ Ray (slef), K.Lynn, England, email via http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Local Creative Commons licences

2005-05-24 Thread MJ Ray
I have just submitted some comments on the Scottish licence draft 240405 at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/cc/cc_sco_licence.html It is interesting to notice that the authorship problems are not present in this licence (as far as I noticed), but the DRM one is and the trademark terms are

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >