On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:29:01AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > The Official Use logo is not under DFSG-free terms, and by my understanding,
> > it isn't intended to be. It is not allowed in the Debian archive. I don't
> > believe this is silly, bizarre or hypocritical.
>
> I on the other h
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:07:59AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:29:01AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
[some attribution got lost here]
> > > The Official Use logo is not under DFSG-free terms, and by my
> > > understanding, it isn't intended to be. It is not allowed in
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [2] E.g., Stallman doesn't think that the GPL itself should be free.
>
> The GPL can be modified, as long as you remove the preamble and don't
> call it the "GPL". It's not DFSG-free, but it's close, and I suspect
In that case I must've misinterprete
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/et/dd/docs/1991/31991L0250-ET.doc
this document outlines the circumstances under which copyright
holders effectively forfeit their copyright and the sections that
i wish to draw to your attention are the ones concerning "interfaces"
and "interoperability at interface
I wanted to run this by you guys before I produced any packages that
use this noting the sip library resiprocate which uses it. The
license is attached.
/*
* The Vovida Software License, Version 1.0
*
* Copyright (c) 2000
Gentile debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
Il messaggio recentemente inviato, riguardo `Mail Delivery (failure [EMAIL
PROTECTED])`
non è stato recapitato. Per favore contatta il nuovo indirizzo [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Grazie,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear debian-legal@lists.debian.org,
Your recent message t
Dan Weber wrote:
> /*
> * The Vovida Software License, Version 1.0
> *
> * Copyright (c) 2000 Vovida Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modi
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
>
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
>
> I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
The indemnification clause is _not_ acceptable. Using phra
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
> you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
> section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
> TCP/IP in the software section, and you ar
Hi,
Raul miller posted this mail on debian-private, with an
explicit permission to quote it elsewhere. I am doing so now.
manoj
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:24:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Can you refute the hard facts found on
> http://people.debian.org/~srivas
For those not wanting a version in Microsoft Word with (?)Estonian,
this directive's text is also available in English HTML at
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett
Other languages can be found by using the number 319
On 2004-05-02 05:29:01 +0100 Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I on the other hand think it is all of the above. What happened to
the
comittee that was looking into this?
If you are referring to the trademark committee (which I'm not sure
whether it directly covers this case), the
Steve Langasek wrote:
It doesn't "add", it clarifies. i.e. if you build a clustered file
system that does stuff specific to reiserfs (e.g. use the reiser4
syscall), then that will be considered a derived work, and must be
distributable under the GPL.
Sure, you could go to court and
On 2004-04-30 18:13:09 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
You just ignored the bit where he forbids supression of the
"credits"
banner?
I am flexible on the phrasing of this, and can allow some phrasing
such as
credits must be kept equally prominent and extensive.
W
On 2004-04-30 18:07:08 +0100 David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| require attribution in a particular format and with a particular
text,
| that's fine, but non-free.
This seems entirely too black-and-white to me.
Fine, go debate it somewhere. This is off-topic for debian-legal and
unwe
[Raul: As I assume you're not subscribed to -legal, I'm taking the
liberty of Cc:'ing you.]
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> any technical means of controlling copies (such as having the gnu
> "cp" command installed on your system) could be seen as violating
> the GFDL.
Or chmod, for ins
MJ Ray wrote:
I don't know what RedHat and KDE have to do with Debian and ReiserFS.
I can look at them and I see red headwear and a cogged letter. Not
really informative. "Various startups" also has little to do with
debian, although if you discriminate against them just because they
are st
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:08:30AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> For the sake of my sanity, can we not use the abbreviation "OU" when the
> two things between which it's disambiguating are "Official Use" and
> "Open Use"? :)
Oops. Any other suggestions for abbreviating "Official Use Logo"? :)
--
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 08:53:03PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> In that case I must've misinterpreted the first parragraph of the
> license text. It says:
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>
> Can you plea
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
> > *may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
> > *permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
> This license appears to be identical to the
Who the hell do you think you are to use market leveraging to force
developers to use licenses they don't want that leave them exposed to
dangers that endanger them not you?
Have you expended 2-3 million dollars and a decade of your life only to
find yourself 100,000 dollars in debt and return
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:59:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [Raul: As I assume you're not subscribed to -legal, I'm taking the
> liberty of Cc:'ing you.]
Thanks.
I should be subscribed now, but I was not previously. I appreciate
the attention.
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > an
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Who the hell do you think you are to use market leveraging to force
> developers to use licenses they don't want that leave them exposed
> to dangers that endanger them not you?
Could the personal attacks please be toned down?
We aren't in the business of
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:59:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's actually about both, specifically about the ability of you or
> > others to read or further copy copies that you have made. Clearly
> > on a computer, a copy that resides upon the hard
On Sun, 2 May 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't recall a committee, and I'm not sure why there would have been one.
See the thread "Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo" in the
debian-project archives for 10/2003. I believe some trademark committee
was mentioned as looking into the logo l
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > >Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
> > >in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
> > oh, well, that is almost as good as putting them on the dark side of
> > the moon a credit read by no one has no mean
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
> rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
Ah, this is key.
I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
programs in such a jurisd
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:31:47PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> See the thread "Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo" in the
> debian-project archives for 10/2003. I believe some trademark committee
> was mentioned as looking into the logo licenses.
I can't find much reference to the Offic
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:01:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It seems to me that it's DFSG §4 which deals with the "unmodifiable
> > > sections" issue. DFSG §3 simply requires that derived works be
> > > redistributable and doesn't address any restrictions on the right to
> > > redistribute
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> Can you point me at some jurisdiction where such copying is
> disallowed?
I have been told that the UK is one such jurisdiction, but I'm by no
means expert (or even versed) in UK law.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00760.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>> * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
>>> *may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
>>> *permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
>
>
>>This license app
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:05:34PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I wonder why we considered clause #4 to be free; it seems a little
> > overreaching.
> > It prohibits code reuse with any projects with names like "Vocal Minority"
> > or
> > "Vocalize". (This isn't an objection; just curiosity.)
> > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't think this is a useful interpretation. "The only modification
> which may be dist
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Can you point me at some jurisdiction where such copying is
> > disallowed?
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I have been told that the UK is one such jurisdiction, but I'm by no
> means expert (or even versed) in UK law.
>
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> > > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I don't think this
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and
> > > > derived
> > > > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
> >
> > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:39:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate
> the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter?
You seem to be contesting the spirit of the DFSG, if only as an exercise.
I think the spirit o
37 matches
Mail list logo
