Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a
>> free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free.
>
> No. It means that works licensed under the GPL are considered free
> s
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Armstrong
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>>> Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
>>> for that marketed it in America.
>>
>> An
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Armstrong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
for that marketed it in America.
And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly bro
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a
> free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free.
No. It means that works licensed under the GPL are considered free
software under the DFSG. That does *not* mean that
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I think you are talking about clause 3b of GPLv2, aren't you?
> >
> > Maybe you picked the wrong example, because clause 3b *is* a non-free
> > restriction. Fortunately there's another alternative option,
> > represented by clause
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but
> it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that
> a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".
It's not retroactive. Right now you are free to choose to use
any "GPLv2 or late
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
> for that marketed it in America.
And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke
the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the
anti
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:09:44 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
> Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >
> >> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> >> discussed.
> >>
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with
the following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they
have broken the terms I set for them to use the program
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
(The only non-native speakers who I won't cut slack are those who start
preaching their interpretation of English as The One True Meaning over
objections from Englishmen. ;-) )
I presume you mean Americans :-))
Regards,
--
MJR/
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
discussed.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
or explicitly f
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
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 " in English has chang
Ben Finney wrote:
No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and
Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses
apply to all of that software.
The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a
CD. The license text doesn't apply as th
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a thought experiment:
>
> Suppose I wrote some software, and wrote it to a CD, erasing all other
> copies. I then wrote out, in longhand, the text of the GPLv3 on paper,
> and attached it to the CD, and gave it to you. This software would
> clea
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the
following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they have
broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't
apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause all
Steve Langasek wrote:
Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel,
slander, and false advertising?
That's a false analogy. All of the things in your list are done with
intent to mislead. In the examples we are considering
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)
Clearly.
> The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.
[...]
Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL - so I can't be certain - but it would not surprise me in the
> slightest if the majority of British lawyers were NOT members of the
> relevant bar association.
>
> I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers
>
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> > disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):
>
> Uh, no, you didn't:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg002
On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
> right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other
countries have the right to respond in kind. Germany, for exampl
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is close to fail the DFSG, but passes. Clause
> > > > 5d of GPLv3 is worse (since it's more restrictive, being extended
> > > > to more cases), and hence it's even closer to fail the DFSG.
> > > There is no q
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> discussed.
>
> There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
> or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
> good chance
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > "Border-line" implies that it could go either direction. This is
> > not true. Regardless of how you feel about thi
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:57PM -0400, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> > than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> > packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> > Component, and
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 3, 29 June 2007
> 1. Source Code.
>
> The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> than the work as a whole, that (a) is incl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted und
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Um, no. "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
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
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on de
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > 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.
>
> > "Bor
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, 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
> > u
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:45:48 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> 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 " in English has chang
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 20:43:22 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > My case was:
> >
> > Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
> > A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot... :-(
> >
> > Frankly speaking, it seems more
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Um, no. "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
> resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
> copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license [...]
Well, t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, 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."):
Uh, no, you didn't:
http:/
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > 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.
Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already, I see! ;)
> If you ha
"Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* 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 ma
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:09:53AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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
Adam Borowski wrote:
Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty. The voice can tell me a lot wh
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:00:38PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Free Software, when it's really free and not merely a ruse to sneak some
> >proprietary crap through, makes us free from legal concerns -- both "am I
> >allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people to have a right to use Y
> >wit
Adam Borowski wrote:
The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position.
This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying "the list of rights the
user acquires with the software". This clause is not about making the
GNU Manifesto
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> >Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?
>
> I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
> see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
The
Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?
I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one --
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Iain Nicol wrote:
> >If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
> >would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
> >but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any use
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.
If this were true, the logical con
Iain Nicol wrote:
If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.
My in
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
> >
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 " in English has changed.
At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about the
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
> > command
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
> ha
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:27:47 -0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> 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 r
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 softwar
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 sect
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
> resp
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 cl
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
> cert
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 categorical rule prohibiting practic
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 referri
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 ar
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities:
> Before:
> GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
> Restriction: you can't do X
> Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code
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: "parti
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.
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 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
> 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
unchanged). If you have a problem with how it did it (the position th
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 m
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
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.
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
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 disclai
* 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
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 Lega
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 d
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 As
* 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
* 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 gu
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 spel
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; I
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
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
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
>
"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have
to
do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires
source
code availability? How does making the source code availabl
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> > When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > circumven
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:10:46 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
[...]
> > I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> > additional requirements to be added. It's *against* the spirit of
> > the GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that new versions would "be
> > s
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
> standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
> interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
> is widely used amon
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
> and depending on the context will contradict themselves.
Well, if clients contradict each other the lawyer has no choice
but to play along...
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking on
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say
> about this clause and its interpretation.
sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
and depending on the context will contradict themselves.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://inv
* Francesco Poli:
>> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
>> author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
>> Notices displayed by works containing it; or
>
> I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> additio
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 in pointing fingers at other people and repeating "he/
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> > [...]
> > Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> > DFSG#1.
>
> It could, but I don't think thi
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
> > Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> > Francesco Poli worries:
> > > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
> > > interface of my
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> DFSG#1.
It could, but I don't think this is one we can test in many cases.
If GPLv3 does turn out to have bi
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
[...]
> Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> [...]
> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Progr
(First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is
because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet gateway
is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list email
address. The trouble is my email client has no message to reply to,
because it's not my N
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:47:59 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> The full final text of the GNU GPL v3 is quoted below for reference.
My comments follow.
The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD.
[...]
> 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
[...]
> When you convey a c
97 matches
Mail list logo
