On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:10 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us
just about anything we wanted to hear. I consulted with Red Hat Legal,
and the conclusion that we came to was that it was not possible for the
copyright holders to
AH == Alex Hudson fed...@alexhudson.com writes:
AH So Red Hat's lawyers know that Red Hat are distributing something
AH which they have no license for, so either they haven't passed that
AH message on or Red Hat have decided they don't care?*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- J
--
On 06/03/2010 10:35 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is
the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we
can't use
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:24:33PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is
either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the
wrong conclusion. All of them.
This isn't the only time it's happened. Debian still
tor 2010-06-03 klockan 19:31 +0100 skrev Alex Hudson:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it
themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but
Dne 3.6.2010 21:09, Tom spot Callaway napsal(a):
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain).
Do we have some better authority on this than Wikipedia? In my
understanding (in a dim memory, now long-time
On 06/04/2010 12:26 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 3.6.2010 21:09, Tom spot Callaway napsal(a):
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain).
Do we have some better authority on this than Wikipedia? In my
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Matěj Cepl asked for
I would really like to see some opinion of the real
European IP law on the matter. Does anybody have URL?
and received a slam at lawyers in the open to the reply.
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who
Dne 4.6.2010 22:10, Tom spot Callaway napsal(a):
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us
I said European IP lawyer, but I will let it be.
Matěj
--
When you're happy that cut and paste actually works I think it's
a sign you've been using X-Windows for too long.
Can anyone contact members in AOP alliance directly, maybe it's helpful?
e.g. Cédric Beus
http://beust.com/weblog/ (http://twitter.com/cbeust)
All members info see http://aopalliance.sourceforge.net/members.html
Regards,
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing,
specifically:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:33 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
- incompatible license
- six years old
- dead upstream
How is this different from what is on the bug report ?
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing,
specifically:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com
wrote:
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
license, not so much that it is incompatible), no
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com
wrote:
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
license,
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yes please. This is why I trust Fedora.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior
On 06/03/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yes please. This is why I
On 06/03/2010 09:59 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yep. Red Hat can do what is necessary for the commercial success of
free software. Meanwhile,
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it
themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but
it's questionable for Fedora.
I can't speak on what
On 06/03/2010 02:31 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question
whether it's Fedora doing it properly.
Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of
it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 15:09 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The argument that everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine is
also completely false. As my mother eloquently put it to me at age 6,
If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?.
That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
The
On 06/03/2010 03:24 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
The French cannot waive copyright argument brings you to the
conclusion you stated; [The license] is not valid, we can't use it.
That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is
the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we
can't use it. Without a license, we cannot include this
24 matches
Mail list logo
