Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
package called 'license-gpl' ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can pull single files off the FSF's ftp archive and not
download the COPYING file. Is the FSF in violation as well? We
seem to be in august company, then.
LOL. Are you
Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando Unfortunately, the Argument posed by RMS, apparently, is that
Rando it needs to be INCLUDED with all packages, no matter what
Rando system it's on.
So tell us something we do not already know. Can we not refuse
to accept the
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas 1) Linux binaries can be run on many non-Linux systems, like BSD,
Thomaswhich might not have any copy of the GPL.
These BSD systems do not use GNU binaries? no gcc? no make? no
flex? bison? bash?
Could you
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As we do. We distribute the Debian systems, and with every
copy of a Debian system, there si the GPL as an essential
component. It is on the Official CD images. It is on every archive
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas That's correct, but the license does not allow you to abandon
Thomas the user to quite that degree. You are obliged to tell the
Thomas user the rights they have with the software. You are not
Thomas obliged to support them, but
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas However, Debian is in a different position, and the problem is that
Thomas people can and do pull .debs off the Debian
Ok. I have discussed this a bit with my roommate, and we have a
suggestion:
Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
(headers?) and mention that many packages, as indicated, are covered
under the GPL. We also mention that redistribution of the packages
requires giving the
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Overdose of my name follows: ;)
Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando Unfortunately, the Argument posed by RMS, apparently, is that
Rando it needs to be INCLUDED with all packages, no matter what
Rando system it's on.
So tell us something we do not
Do we really need to actuall include the GPL in every .deb containing
GPL code? Just because there's a server where the .debs can be
downloaded by themselves? Does this also extend to a server with
source tree - e.g. since I can make a copy of a single .h file, must
it include the GPL too?
On 1 Dec 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
Do we really need to actuall include the GPL in every .deb containing
GPL code? Just because there's a server where the .debs can be
downloaded by themselves? Does this also extend to a server with
source tree - e.g. since I can make a copy of a single .h
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:26:22PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
In the Real-World application, though, installing 300+ copies of the GPL
is absurd, and, quite frankly, a waste of space. Which seems the only way
to satisfy him.
Certainly it's not necessary, as has been pointed out a
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... we should be including the GPLed sources in our packages.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) replied:
Except that the GPL section 3 explicitly says that providing a copy of
the source on the same download site counts as accompanying.
Different
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:26:22PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
In the Real-World application, though, installing 300+ copies of the GPL
is absurd, and, quite frankly, a waste of space. Which seems the only
way
to satisfy him.
The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
circumstance, which makes us be violating the gpl. apparently. =P
We are distributing aliened
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So tell us something we do not already know. Can we not refuse
to accept the validity of that argument?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rando Christensen) wrote:
Sure we can. I say, if RMS wants to banter and bicker and bitch
and moan about it, instead of
Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
Rando from us,
This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
distribute alienated rpms. The person at fault, if indeed there is
someone at fault, is the
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
circumstance, which makes us be violating the gpl.
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Rando == Rando Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rando The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
Rando from us,
This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
distribute alienated rpms. The person at fault,
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
sarcasm
But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
then be left without
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
(headers?)
I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of GPL (or,
for that matter, any other common license) is sent on every connection...
Would a
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Rando Christensen wrote:
snip
This is nearly 10 years later. Nine and a half since gplv2. The world has
changed a little bit, on that subject.
Ay, therein lies the rub! Isn't nine years a little late in the game to
go changing the rules? Had this been a software patent
Nobody seems to have picked up the simple fact that the GPL does not
explicitly state 'you must distribute this license with executable code'.
What it does is state 'you must distribute executable code with the
complete source code, an offer for the complete source code, or the offer
you got for
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Except that tools like alien do not enforce or care about the
Thomas dependency in any way.
What does that have to do with debian policy?
Nothing, but it has a lot to do
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
whatever punishment you choose. But their trnagressions do not belong
on debian policy.
We do, in fact, make
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is a) not supported, really
b) not what we distribute.
We distribute a system. Our policy governs our system (debian-policy
is not relevant to a non debian system).
We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We
Brian Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sarcasm
But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
then be left without
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, section 3 says the executable code must be distributed under the
terms of sections 1 and 2, but sections 1 and 2 don't explicitely mention
a requirement to distribute the GPL with executable code. Also, nowhere in
the preamble does it state that the word
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:04:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
there would probably be no issue here.
I quote from the GPL here (section 3):
I think this boils down to one issue with only one solution that would satisfy
RMS:
Including a copy of the GPL in every single .deb
Linking to the GPL, assuming the all Debian users have copies of the GPL (which
they should/do), and claiming that all other systems that try and use
- Forwarded message from Hein Meling [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Hein Meling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 23:44:35 +0100
To: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian Weekly News - November 29th, 2000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
Dear Joey,
I don't know if it's
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reread my mail. Then realize that the GPL explicitly demands it.
I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case.
Do you seriously believe that Debian (or anyone) can ignore the
provisions of the GPL that it finds inconvenient?
--
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
Thomas prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
Thomas there would probably be no issue here.
Strawman. Tell me how your
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas So the FSF needs to make sure that friends in the free software
Thomas community play by the rules, even if the danger isn't so high, because
Thomas otherwise our enemies might start ignoring the rules, and claiming the
Thomas
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
whatever punishment you choose. But their trnagressions
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We advertise in various
Thomas ways individual .debs. It is true that we only *support* their use on
Thomas Debian systems, which can be relied on to have GPL copies. But the
Thomas
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Except that tools like alien do not enforce or care about the
Thomas dependency in any way.
What does that have to do with debian policy?
manoj
--
I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid the artificial person,
38 matches
Mail list logo
