[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can
For once I agree with Alexander - you've read the preamble, not the
license, and usually the preamble does not have any legal force.
Andrew
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I am not authorized to offer a legal
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Matthew Garrett:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't
looks astonishingly bad?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
Hi,
since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been
discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
GPL'ed document) would be object code as treated in section 3,
,
| 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
| under
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in
Hi,
I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
a question, which is already answered.
I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ).
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
or other legal authority supporting his stance on the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
Stephan Michels writes:
Hi,
I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
a question, which is already answered.
I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a
On 1/18/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
I know. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html
Pls read that message in its entirety (and also
Frank Küster writes:
I wouldn't be too sure that set doesn't have a different meaning to
lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
sequence to include conditional execution and loops.
Regardless of
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Typically that's the presumption (since object code is not source),
but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a
lawyer if it's important to you).
It's important to me as a maintainer of
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end, of course, not everyone is going to agree. And frankly, I
think that's the more important issue. Many people who use debian are
going to assume that they don't suddenly lose the freedoms of the DFSG
just because a document has been printed
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
not?
You're asking me to repeat the entire
Michio Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)
Nngh.
Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example,
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
affected.
Did we ever find concrete
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/18/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Well, the draft for GPL v3 says:
Object code means any non-source version of a work.
Everyone seems to like this.
So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is object code.
How fascinating. The courts will enjoy this
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one?
regards,
alexander.
* Package name: php-net-imap
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
* License : php license
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative
works, it causes endless trouble.
That
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using work based on the
Program to re-use that
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that
they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by
extensive debian-legal
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.
Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of this
would make Debian call the
Frank Küster wrote:
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program asa set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...}
What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now compatible.
The OSI approval (I just pray that
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.
Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. author's right has really little to do with distribution. First Sale,
y'know.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.
Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.
I guess our Prof has a lecture.
Just to save Prof's time: once you add
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:05 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Glenn!
You wrote:
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and
share copyrighted
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:13:18 +0100 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it
from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy
the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place.
You need not require recipients to copy the
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:26:47 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm in favor, in principle, of being allowed to make anonymous
changes.
So do I!
The right to make anonymous changes is indeed an important one.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a
system
Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:
- code reuse isn't important (often thinly veiled as eg. you don't
really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it), and
- if you really want to reuse
You might consider putting a line of blank space between quotes and
your reply, like everyone else does; it makes it easier to read.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:08PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I can understand that the source for those things might be tricky,
but often images are
Tobias Toedter wrote:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at\n
your option) any later version.\n
\n
This program is
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Have you heard argument three?
A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically
prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free
(while discouraging it). Patch clauses
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective
technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution.
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work
(17 U.S.C. 1201):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import,
45 matches
Mail list logo
