Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
> >
> > http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> >
> > I'd appreciate comments.
>
> It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I
"Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote...
>
> > contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
> > The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
> >
> > 6. You may develop ap
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not in favor of the obligatory publishing clause.
>
> Indeed, isn't that sort of clause the very reason we've refused to allow
> other software into Debian?
Hmm, QPLed software (which contains a obnoxious clause in this
direction) has made its way i
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > "Dissident" test.
> /me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
> suggestion and continue
Hi,
For those who doesn't know in debian-legal, i am the DD for phpnuke
package. Since Mr. Robinson had filled a grave bug against phpnuke
license ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183672 ) i
need to make a decision about moving it or not to non-free.
As after trying (yeah
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
> time to the GPL and the BSD camps.
Yes. In particular the reasons for choosing BSD are not limited to "I
want people to be able to take my software proprietary". In the free
sof
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> I'd appreciate comments.
Cool. I like question 5 especially. :-)
Add to the "desert island" test that it also explains why postcardware
(or emailwa
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Since it's viral, it means you can't take some nifty url parsing function
> > from your favourite webapp, and use it in, say, xchat or an IRC bot
> > (depending on how you want to interpret "interact with users"), without
> > having to give xchat some
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 1) People who can vote: anyone reading this message (so reading
> debian-legal)
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
>
Hugo Espuny wrote:
3) Where i have to send my vote: to _debian-devel_ as a reply of this
Obviously i meant "debian-legal" ;-)
--
bye,
Hugo Espuny [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GNUPG key:
debian developer[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pub 1024D/E8074ECF 2002-06-28
For more info, visi
Scripsit Hugo Espuny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just keep in mind this is not an election, but a kind of referendum to
> help me out. Your help is gonna be very appreciated.
Branden's bug report was accurate when it stated that nobody on d-l
has expressed the opinion that the upstream author's requir
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to non-recipient
> users still be considered free?
> My answers are "no" and "no".
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a licens
Hugo Espuny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
> 3) Where i have to send my vote: to debian-devel as a reply of this
> me
Hugo,
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> For those who doesn't know in debian-legal, i am the DD for phpnuke
> package. Since Mr. Robinson had filled a grave bug against phpnuke
> license ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183672 ) i
> need to make
Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't see that a vote is either necessary or relevant here.
It doesn't harm in anyway, and it will help me :-) This is only voluntary.
Unless you
have a specific argument why you believe the interpretation put forth by
debian-legal is wrong,
Just my personal opinio
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > > "Dissident" test.
> > /me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
> > suggestion
Anthony Towns writes:
> Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
> rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
> a country that's potentially going all pro-Linux while we need to do it.
So what you're saying is, as long as China cl
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:46:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
> > rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
> > a country that's potentially going all pro
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Now you're saying that we must be nice and polite to the PRC. Let's
> all be friends! (And not pay attention to the people crushed by the
> tanks.) I remember Tianenmen Square; it seems that the world has
> mostly forgotten.
Worse things have happene
Anthony Towns writes:
> No, I'm saying Debian's about free software, not about your favourite
> set of politics. We don't have a problem with the United States using
> Debian to aim their nuclear weapons, nor China using Debian to track
> down the Falun Gong.
China is opposed to *free software*.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:04:48PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> >I don't see that a vote is either necessary or relevant here.
>
> It doesn't harm in anyway, and it will help me :-) This is only voluntary.
If it's a waste of time, or comes to a false conclusion (as impromptu,
ad hoc votes are liabl
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > The whole point is to make the test be extreme, that's how you get
> > clarity. But it still has to make sense. It's entirely plausible that me
> > and a friend could be stuck with our solar powered
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> As after trying (yeah!, i mean trying, because is to hard to extract
> conclusions from such a very large thread) I don't get a clear idea of
> what you legal gurus think about this matter, i 'm asking you for vote
> accordingly with
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:27:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Also--a more concrete question--is it safe to distribute (even in non-free)
> programs which have upstream authors asserting broken interpretations of
> their license terms?
In this case, probably not. I just examined phpnuke's CRED
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:28:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
> >
> > Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used
> > earlier)
> > and deploy it around my company.
>
> How is "deploying" it
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:12:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > That would be silly, since you could always fall back to v2. The only
> > reason to fear v2 or later is that v3 could be too permissive, not too
> > restrictive.
>
> No; if I release software under v2 or later, and a v3 with t
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
I vote a), for the same reasons given by others on the t
Anthony Towns writes:
> Uh, no. The difference is here that we want to allow the people to do
> free software development on the island, assuming they already have the
> abilitiy to. The copyright license is the sole worry we have here --
> nothing else affects what they're permitted to do.
Yes,
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> something more like:
>
> "If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
>if you receive a request by the Primary Copyright Holder
>(named above), you mu
Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
publication or the Affero bit are onerous.
Free software should create a sort of economy in which things
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:25PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> This seems to be a serious stretch of the actual wording of (2)(d). One
> could also argue that any CD which includes GPL'd software is a
> derivative work of that software. But arguing it doesn't make it true.
> Let's talk about w
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:27:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Also--a more concrete question--is it safe to distribute (even in non-free)
> programs which have upstream authors asserting broken interpretations of
> their license terms?
There have been a number of occasions where Debian has acc
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
> Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
> A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their
> DFSG rights, it's OK if there are othe
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
>known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
>messages to other dissidents in the source code of the forum
>software itself. The PCH
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> > something more like:
> > "If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
> > if you receive a requ
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> >I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
> >known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
> >messages to other dissidents in the so
> -Original Message-
> From: Hugo Espuny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just
>once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
> c) "I don't know"
I vote for "a", as I feel this is the only appropriate opt
Anthony Towns writes:
> This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
> in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
>
> "If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
>a request by the Primary Copyright Holder, you
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:52:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> > > something more like:
> > > "If you have distribu
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:11:29PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> > Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
> > Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
> > A: For Debian's purposes, if all the diffe
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Does it make it anything you might want to do with free software
> > technically any more difficult? I don't think so -- you have to be asked
> > by the original author, and they have to cover your costs in fulfulling
> > the reque
41 matches
Mail list logo
