The mysql folks are preparing 0.2 of their FLOSS exception. The
current draft can be seen here:
http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/getfile/licensing/FLOSS-exception.txt?v=1.4
The most notable differences are the addition of some licenses, and the
removal of the derived-work-may-not-bundle-mysq
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:42:14PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Does it make any difference that the company is question has been
> dissolved and they basically dropped everything into the public domain?
I found
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/debian-devel-199705/msg00759.html
It se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are you aware of this page:
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
It contains links to mailinglist threads.
- -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
It only terminates a patent license, not
On Thu, May 13, 2004, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> abuse-sfx has been orphaned so there is no maintainer to do that. So I will
> do it.
I am adopting the Abuse packages, but I first wqnt to get rid
of abuse-sfx by providing DFSG-free replacements for all sounds. I
currently have replacements for the
On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
[...] This has the effect of a patent
cross-license: "Don't
On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:13:03 +0200
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am adopting the Abuse packages, but I first wqnt to get rid of
> abuse-sfx by providing DFSG-free replacements for all sounds.
I just noticed that the abuse-lib package's copyright file tells us
who owns the right to th
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> >>legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" s
Thu, 13 May 2004 09:03:20 -0500
The First Gove.rnment Mo'rtgage Program. Under a new bil1,
we have aspecial budget to help you and
your family. A lot of privileges available.
0nly 200 spots 0pen left
App1y here
cdxrudy dhyxbe- xgzagfh. mtkrwdyo qyluvqa akxdqisl sybpsbonv zsnvkreza msixlfug
On Thu, May 13, 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> Apparently they're the property of one Bobby Prince, who can be
> reached via http://www.bpmusic.com. Perhaps you could persuade him to
> release them under DFSG-Free terms?
Uhm, right. I'll try that.
--
Sam.
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
>> in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
> case, I need to find another ex
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
In my case it is a rather trivial Perl module (I18N::AcceptLanguage), to
write it was probably less time consuming than this discussion. Perhaps
I could ask the author why he uses such a complicated license for such
a trvial piece of software.
1) Given that the IBM Publ
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
> >> in the output from --version, etc.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
> > case, I need to find a
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in
> a position of strength if software patents are involved.
I don't think I agree. At least, not yet.
In reading over this license, I see a number of clauses designed t
I think I am getting to your point, let me try:
@ 13/05/2004 12:44 : wrote Raul Miller :
Or just read the GPL and consider what happens in the case where a
DFSG license imposes some restriction not imposed by the GPL, and where
someone wants to combine software under the two licenses.
For th
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce some other patent a
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> For the just read the GPL part, I did (and asked this list for help and
> review, but no-one seems to be interested), and I got to the following
> (obvious duh) conclusion:
> * it does not permit making derived works that combines
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
>> like
>> the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up nullifying
>> the patent in question. [...]
>
> What if you want t
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
> against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
> such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
> Why should this
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
>>> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
>>> software. [...]
>>
>> [...] This has the effect
On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Andrew Saunders wrote:
>
> > Package: 3270
> > Version: all
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.3
> >
> > See the license terms here:
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/change
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> >That said, I don't have any reason to believe it's possible to have
>> >licensing terms which aren't explicitly stated in the license on the
>> >software. If I receive software with a license, I have no reason
@ 13/05/2004 14:11 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This did not make sense to me.
I was referring to this statement by Joe Moore:
The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that they
be a complete explanation of al
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
case,
@ 13/05/2004 14:11 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
The "I think I am understanding" part is: you are arguing that, by
forbidding one of making and distributing those (functional)
modifications, the GPL forbids some derived works, and in
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And in which jurisdiction can the supplier of Palladium legally forbid
> > the third party that I give my modified GCC to (and who does not have
> > any contractual relation with the supplier) from continuing my
> > development work?
> If the functiona
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was addressing the assertion that the GPL allows any functional
> modifications -- that needn't be the case when the functions are
> proprietary.
GPL *does* allow any functional modifications.
Your vague allegations to "proprietary modifications" does
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (C) Humberto Massa 2004
> Just this and nothing else.
> Not a license statement, nothing like that. Just the copyright symbol,
> the name of the copyright holder, and the year (so people know when
> your copyright will expire).
Um, how will the year h
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm:
> > Well, exactly in the LGPL case we don't need to scrutinize the entire
> > license. We can do with noticing that any work covered by the LGPL is
> > effectively dual-licensed with pure GPL, so the freedom of the former
> > follows
Scripsit Cédric Delfosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1. Add the attached LICENSE file to your code. This file tells that your
> code is GPL, with an exception which allows linking with OpenSSL. Here
> is the text of the exception:
Please remember that this option is only legally possible if the
Middlem
Scripsit Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -- Forwarded message --
>SENDMAIL OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
> Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any
> modified or derived work) of the Software in source and binary forms is
> permitted onl
> >I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete description"
> >mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:48:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this:
> (C) Humberto Massa 2004
>
> > I was looking for a "patches only" license, and my memory wasn't up to the
> > job.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:49:53AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Please pick one example and stick with it to the logical conclusion. This
> is your third (and fourth) hypothetical GCC combination.
I don't like t
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you make (with
>> > > very limited exceptions, such as the license blurb).
>
> @ 11/05/2004 20:32 : wrote Raul Miller :
>> > Only if the resul
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
>> >> in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't re
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you satisfy
> GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do not have
> the right to put under GPL's terms.
No, it says I may only *distribute* it under such a license.
>> 4. I wi
Scripsit Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Appropriate X-Debbugs-CC header added. Let's see what the -legal
> eagles think.
The copyright file says
| The 5250 emulation code carries one more copyright:
|
| 5250 Emulation Code Copyright Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat
| Rubischon.
|
| What
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:48:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this:
> > (C) Humberto Massa 2004
> > Just this and nothing else.
> > Not a license statement, nothing like that.
> Right -- and if you do
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > And in which jurisdiction can the supplier of Palladium legally forbid
> > > the third party that I give my modified GCC to (and who does not have
> > > any contractual relation with the supplier) from continuing my
> > > development work?
>
> > If th
> > Section 2 allows you to make copies under the terms of section 1, which
> > requires an appropriate license. The GPL has some specific requirements
> > on licenses. The work as a whole would included GPL licensed software.
>
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:14:56PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrot
> > I was looking for a "patches only" license, and my memory wasn't up to
> > the job. Replace "metafont" with some software under a "patches only"
> > license (or, any license with some restriction not imposed by the GPL
> > -- a "must rename" license is probably enough), to see the point I was
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you satisfy
> > GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do not have
> > the right to put under GPL's terms.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:22:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wr
> > Right -- and if you do that, I have been granted no rights to make copies
> > of that work.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:23:45PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> That does not follow. You may be granted lots of right. The statement
> that says that you have those rights is just not part of the te
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
all
of the software's contributors not to sue you
On 2004-05-13 18:12:32 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a
patent in a counterclaim?
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Section 2 allows you to make copies under the terms of section 1, which
>> > requires an appropriate license. The GPL has some specific requirements
>> > on licenses. The work as a whole would included GPL licensed software.
>>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004
On 2004-05-13 18:24:21 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Also, note that this license isn't saying "We license you these
patents,
...", but instead "We license you whatever patents we may or may not
have over this software, ...". Like any other piece of software, it
may
or may
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> "Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In another topic, I prefer the term "copyrighted". "Copyrightable" is
> > an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is
> > copyrighted by default...
>
> I see a fi
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:59:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > though LGPL is quite OLD, AFAICS there is no summary. To put it on the
> > web pages, I wrote one:
> >
> > Debian-legal has concluded that the LGPL (L
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no
> patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then
> having no patent licence => non-free.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple -- the U.S. patent off
> > Section 1 also places this requirement on any copies you make.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:12:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Quote me that part. Hint: it isn't here:
Oh? What about this text that you just quoted?
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim cop
> > What does this have to do with free software?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Free software licences should not contaminate other software, remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here.
All I see is statements saying disc
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >Given that our standard position on patents is to ignore them unless a
> >particular patent holder is threatening us with lawsuits, I see no
> >reason why we shouldn't apply the same policy here.
>
> Our standard position on patents is usu
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is the first post I've received from you that contains the word
> "step".
My exact words were:
| I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
| words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
| modifie
> [lots of fascist steps snipped]
>
> > How do you modify gcc to support this micropayment functionality while
> > complying with the GPL?
>
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I don't know. However, if you somehow manage to make a functional
> modification of gcc s
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >SENDMAIL OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>
> > Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any
> > modified or derived work) of the Software in source
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Massa's little trying-to-be-comprehensive study about the GPL.
Um, nothing personal, but this study/summary/whatever seems to be
really unreadable. Certainly the GPL itself is easier reading.
Could you try to formulate your next version (if any) such
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 03:04:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Some DD could, then, propose, this important edition to the DFSG:
>
> new DFSG#3, GPL-compatible: "Derived Works :: The license must allow any
> modification to be made to the original work, generating derived works;
> it must als
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I don't know. However, if you somehow manage to make a functional
> > modification of gcc such that it runs on the system *and* you
> > distribute your modified gcc with full source and
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say "if the user wants to
> > sue *us*, he must do it in SF"
> I'm not really sure about that one.
I think it would be free mainly because
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the cases
>>> above, terminate?
>>
>> This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from all
>> of the software
> > I wasn't talking about "fault".
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:54:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> What on earth are you talking about then?
>
> Your agenda seems to be trying to demonstrate that the GPL is "not
> free enough" because it prevents certain kinds of functional
> modifications. I
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
> >like
> >the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
> >nullifying
> >the pate
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:54:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The GPL has nothing at all against the functional modification you
> > sketch.
> If you like, I can change the nature of the proprietary function so that
> it's even more facist.
It wo
64 matches
Mail list logo
