Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion. > Apparently in many other people's opinion, too. > But they are not in *my* opinion. Sorry, this was not *my* opinion, it was *Debian*'s opinion. This *is* debian-legal, isn't it? > I think I have a right to have my own opinion and to express it > publicly, as long as I clearly describe it as my *own personal* opinion. Sorry, this is debian-legal. Let's stick to that. If you want to continue talking about CC licenses, please start a new thread and talk about it there. Don't clutter up every thread with your opinions, which are counter to Debian. > I just said that, if all files were licensed in a mutually compatible > manner, there would be no doubt about possible license compatibility > issues. Which should be quite obvious, shouldn't it? This is like saying (to take a quote from a TV show) "The Banana Stand that won't make you sick and kill you" is a fine thing to say, it should be quite obvious, right? The fact of the matter is by saying something will remove doubt, you assume there *is* doubt. Which there isn't. I'm seriously out of this thread :) -T -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better > > > than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works. > > > But that's not the point, anyway. > > > What I was trying to say was just that having those files under > > > GPL-compatible terms would erase any possible doubt (and also enable > > > other potential uses that are currently forbidden). > > Please don't spread FUD against the CC license set when it'll be > > perfectly fine. (quite literally F.U.D. in this case). The CC licenses > > are perfectly fine, no matter how much you disagree. > CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion. > Apparently in many other people's opinion, too. > But they are not in *my* opinion. > I think I have a right to have my own opinion and to express it > publicly, as long as I clearly describe it as my *own personal* opinion. You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of free software, as well as guidance regarding the *legality* of particular combinations of works. You using the list as a soapbox for your opinions about licenses that you think Debian *shouldn't* accept is an abuse of the list. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:00:10 -0400 Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due > > to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. > > [...] In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a library from a permissive non-copyleft license to a highly restrictive one (such as the GNU AfferoGPL v3) and about license compatibility issues between the library and other works linking with it. [...] > > > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? > > Yes. The FTP Masters' decision about works licensed under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is to accept them into Debian main: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 Other people have expressed disagreement and/or concerns. I hope this clarifies a bit. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp28alrQRoFa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better > > than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works. > > > > But that's not the point, anyway. > > What I was trying to say was just that having those files under > > GPL-compatible terms would erase any possible doubt (and also enable > > other potential uses that are currently forbidden). > > Please don't spread FUD against the CC license set when it'll be > perfectly fine. (quite literally F.U.D. in this case). The CC licenses > are perfectly fine, no matter how much you disagree. CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion. Apparently in many other people's opinion, too. But they are not in *my* opinion. I think I have a right to have my own opinion and to express it publicly, as long as I clearly describe it as my *own personal* opinion. > > > > In addition, this is an absurd claim to start; the GIMP is GPL-3, can we > > > not edit CC-BY-SA images in the GIMP? The GIMP reads these files at > > > runtime, too! > > > > Once again, that's not what I said. > > I don't see how you can draw a distinction between a data file being > loaded and an image being edited. I am not drawing a distinction between the two cases. I just said that, if all files were licensed in a mutually compatible manner, there would be no doubt about possible license compatibility issues. Which should be quite obvious, shouldn't it? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpZ5cVp11P2K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote: > > Hi, > > there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due > to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. > > I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at > least two points: > > • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software > (embargoed fixes)/ > > • The requirements for source delivery using the network once > someone patches it. > > • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above. > > I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve > been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them > contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program, > so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big > foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since > it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins). > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? Yes. > > Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either. > > bye, > //mirabilos > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org >
AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
Hi, there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at least two points: • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software (embargoed fixes)/ • The requirements for source delivery using the network once someone patches it. • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above. I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program, so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins). So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 10:44 +0200 schrieb roucaries bastien: > Could you ask also for the fontforge source and not like the > postscript font the resulting file ? We should be careful and not request too much at once from them. I once had a short mail with RMS about that topic and the FSF considers fonts in binary formats acceptible, since they can still be edited with font editors. Please note that the .sfd format is not the canonical source format for fonts, but only fontforge's own file format which happens to be text-based. So it's just one possible, though often the prefered, format for fonts. On the other hand, it is not necessary that URW uses fontforge for their font editing, so they might not even be able to provide fonts in its sfd format. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1377599942.29217.6.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de
Re: data and software licence incompatabilities?
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Paul Elliott wrote: > A database of place names. Read in as data when the program runs. Which database are you talking about? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fazbfn6zf-09lqmmzv-plxneptqwlz6fje1unkawv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re: About the licensing of URW Garamond No. 8
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 16:32 -0300 schrieb Rogério Brito: >> Anyway, back to URW Garamond No. 8, I guess that the letter that I >> wrote may still be relevant. Should I try sending it? > > Yes, please do so! Maybe we have some chance of success as a Linux > distributor requesting relicensing of one single font (that has already > been released to the public anyway, though under different terms). > > Thank you very much! Could you ask also for the fontforge source and not like the postscript font the resulting file ? > > - Fabian > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > http://lists.debian.org/1377503459.29272.24.ca...@kff50.ghi.rwth-aachen.de > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cae2spaagog-_toxvq5bfe-5nb8nommp2hpnlmfsw2urhqzz...@mail.gmail.com
