On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > For instance:
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes?
> > You want 32,000 instead? You've got
I am the upstream author for analog. Sorry, I'm getting into this discussion
a bit late, because I've been away on holiday. I'll try and cover everything
in this mail.
First, I'm already subscribed to debian-legal, so please stop Cc:'ing me.
Thanks.
The general point first. Joey Hess wrote:
> It
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:21:24AM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> The question of whether to change now to the GPL, or dual with GPL, is
> different though, and I don't think it can be done. I would have to contact
> all the contributing authors. But more seriously, analog includes code from
> libr
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license?
>
> Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render
> something GPL-incompatible.
>
Well, some of each, in fact.
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license?
> >
> > Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render
> > something GPL-incompatible.
> >
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> >
> > But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
> > which contains the condition:
> > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source dist
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 03:44:53PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> IANAL, but I disagree with your interpretation of this passage. It refers
> explicitly to "separate works". If the analog code contains chunks of zlib
> code within it, then the opposite case, "part of a whole" should apply.
Nevert
Stephen Turner wrote:
> I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
> the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
> program, and "reasonable" does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
> the DFSG perfectly well to me.
The way
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
> which contains the condition:
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
> The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't understand
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
> the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
> program, and "reasonable" does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
> the DFSG perfectly
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
> otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
> texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
It's certainly not the intention; such a reading is obviously
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
> > otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
> > texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
>
> It's
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
> > > otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
> >
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
> which contains the condition:
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
> The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't und
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Because there is really just not an issue. Are you trying to make up
> issues where none exist? Are you genuinely confused?
>
> Perhaps, as I suspect, you are trying to read licenses as if they were
> computer programs. Licenses are interpreted by
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Humans are also required to follow the text of the licence, and not let
> things through just because we think they ought to have been allowed.
But we're not wondering whether or not they ought to be allowed: the
FSF has, by explicit example, demonstra
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Let me try and restate my reasoning. When making a derived work from GPL
> > source, you are not allowed to add extra, more restrictive conditions on
> > top of the GPL conditions. But the (new) BSD licence does impose an extra
> > condition, namely
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > Let me try and restate my reasoning. When making a derived work from GPL
> > > source, you are not allowed to add extra, more restrictive conditions on
> > > top of the GPL conditions. But the (new)
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't have any problem with the copyright notice. My problem is that the
> > BSD licence requires that you reproduce not only the copyright notice, but
> > also the licence itself and their disclaimer.
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I don't have any problem with the copyright notice. My problem is that the
> > > BSD licence requires that you reproduce not only the copyright notice,
20 matches
Mail list logo
