request by Donald
Knuth because you think you've found a legal loophole in his statement.
Surely you're just saying this to make an obscure pedantic point, not to
indicate that it should have anything whatsoever to do with what Debian
does.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
Note that if this means *anything* at all
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if Debian is not violating the intended license directly, to base
a stance on the viewpoint that the license is legally uninforcable and
therefore irrelevant seems rather disconcerting.
Are you
particularly persuasive; it seems to be very
strong on emotion without a lot of logic to back it up, or without any
real discussion of what you're trying to defend and why.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
terms with lawyers.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm
familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so
apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem
reaches some sort of general conclusion on this,
it would be really nice to add that to either the DFSG or some supporting
material, since this has come up repeatedly for years and this exact
argument happens every time.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
for putting up with the intrusion; I think I've
explained what I was trying to explain and I now have a much better
understanding of where other people are coming from. I appreciate the
discussion.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
as if they were known fact, and the available
information does not seem to support that. If what you meant to say was
that it's unclear whether this is allowed or not and Debian shouldn't take
a chance, I would probably agree.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
that one can distribute the qmail
source code along with a patch to that code and a script to compile it,
based on his statements on his web pages. That puts me back to trying to
understand why I should believe one of you over the other.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http
the following item only if it is true.
[ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
=== CUT HERE ===
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
of sections of manuals continue to have complete
control over their original contributions. They can't keep the FSF from
relicensing their contributions, but they can also re-release them under a
different license.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
document to exchange or give
away those rights or interests.
Doesn't a contract require renumeration? I don't see how a public domain
grant could be considered a contract, because the person giving away their
software isn't (by definition) getting anything in return.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL
for using, copying, modifying, and distributing this
software rather than you may not charge a fee for this software, but
which is an endless source of confusion.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
clause for non-interactive programs. Maybe I'm missing some
previous discussion?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
fails the Desert Island
test.
There's an interesting question. Is a public key copyrightable? In other
words, does VeriSign have any legal grounds to restrict use of their
public keys at all?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
to switch over to
cleaner-licensed copies anyway.
(This issue is precisely why I didn't use the Apache snprintf in INN.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
of you. I just happen to be fairly
familiar with some of the issues around SRP because it has a long and
controversial history locally here.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
, is using sane MIT
licenses, thank heavens
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
different than any other GPL-covered software
from Debian's perspective.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
. That will mean that software with or later version
clauses potentially won't have this issue once GPLv3 is formally released,
although I haven't analyzed it in detail.
dpkg is one of the packages with an or later version clause.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org
know if I missed a previous archived discussion.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that this page is somewhat confusing in that the grants at the top of
the page supersede grants farther down on the page from the same entities.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
with disclaimers attached, are relevant.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mind if need be.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with...
In the other jurisdictions that you're familiar with, is there any similar
principal where if you make a recorded public statement that something is
okay, you cannot then later sue someone for doing what you said was okay?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http
. Not disagreeing there.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
involved, and I think it would be an
excellent idea to involve them even now. If nothing else, I expect that
would neatly cut through the uncertainty and legal speculation and provide
a real opinion on the license.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think I lost a thread of the argument here. How does the acceptance
into non-free of a package by the ftp-masters commit SPI to a legally
binding agreement?
The first paragraph
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
You believe that it's pretty clear that *SPI* is distributing the
software? Could you trace your reasoning here?
Nobody said that and you know it.
Uh, well, believe it or not, that really did seem
and the closer we can make the
relationship between SPI's lawyer and the ftp-master evaluation of
questionable licensing, the less I'll worry about weird license clauses
and questionable provisions.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
several other opinions.
There's no way of separating those out afterwards, and I don't think we're
likely to come up with a reasonable ballot on a single license that would
do so.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
?
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.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I don't understand the rationale for doing
anything different.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle
version of the GPL.
As far as I can see, the only reason for the Debian project to ever choose
a later version of the GPL when distributing packages is if that later
version offers us some new freedom that we want to exercise, and I've not
heard of any such thing happening yet.
--
Russ Allbery
, not to the symlink. Packages not doing that are
already buggy and we should start fixing them.
I think we can all agree on this, yes.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
, new proposed patch, incorporating these fixes.
I think that this Policy bug has been addressed by the current version of
Policy, which no longer mentions the unversioned files at all. Please let
me know if you disagree; otherwise, I'll close this bug.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED
of the GPL or your
debian/copyright is already wrong. And while you're changing it anyway,
you can change the GPL link to point to the minimum version allowed by the
package.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
of the concept.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[You didn't honor my M-F-T so I guess this will continue to go to both
lists.]
Indeed.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The version in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is very specifically the
UCB version,
A major
not be there since
it usually can't be referenced correctly by packages (it lists a specific
copyright holder). But it's not clear to me whether it's worth the effort
to withdraw it or change it at this point.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle
not be called PHP, nor
may PHP appear in their name, without prior written permission
from gr...@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying Foo for PHP instead of calling
it PHP Foo or phpfoo
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org
of supported algorithms and key bit lengths, plus I'm
sure that we have other, more minor packages with other implementations
(we probably have some native Perl implementations, for example).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
with merit, etc., and other people
aren't trusting our license statements about that material.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
likely is it that we wouldn't be able to remedy it without much cost if we
acted promptly? This is less a question about the specific language of
the law and more a practical question of how the law works in the real
world, something that a lawyer would be better-qualified to weigh in on.
--
Rus
solving it." In other words, pretty much exactly the
policy we use right now for security issues, which I suspect are far more
dangerous to Debian users on the whole than copyright and licensing issues
(although both are important!).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
, except more clearly, accurately, and succinctly. Anyone who
was reading my previous messages should just go read that instead.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
46 matches
Mail list logo
