Don Armstrong writee:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free software outweighs the effective
discrimination.
That's why we're discussing it now (and have discussed it in the
past.) We're trying to determine what amount
* Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040721 00:51]:
Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that
clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out
there will have clauses that may clash with
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
What part of
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
allows for _any_ discrimination?
None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:59:04AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:15:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:47:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
6. You may develop application
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
Well, in the orginal summary, there was no mention of 3b, so ...
b. When modifications to the Software are
Bernard R Link writes:
* Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040721 00:51]:
Since the DFSG itself doesn't distinguish between the two in that
clause, the latter is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
So where does this stop? Just about every current free license out
there will have clauses
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:10:23AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:05:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
[compelled unrelated distribution]
For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never
* Evan Prodromou:
The classic example here is an autobiographical work. The author could
ask that all references to herself be removed from a derivative work
critical of her.
Such claims are usually not based on copyright. As I tried to
explain, the CC clause which is considered non-free
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main thing I don't understand in the recent discussion is that, if we
don't take personal offense at a licensor's bad license, why should we
expect the licensor to take offense if we bounce it for failing the DFSG?
Why do we act as if their time is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That things get particularly weird with the copyright regime when patents
are held to affect the same works as copyrights is an indictment of the
practice of both patenting and copyrighting software, not an indictment of
our license analysis practices.
I
Arg, another poster who didn't CC me as asked. Well, let's see if the
mail-followup-to will work next time, altough since i have use lynx for this
reply, there is no chance it will work.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:38:23AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of dissidents.=20
Which set?
The ones who want to be able to give binaries to people when they don't
necessarily trust them with the
Thanks for CCing me as i asked. I now set my .muttrc to enable
mail-followup-to, but until i am first CCed, this is not gonna work in lynx.
#index top up prev next
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
distributed source code be provided to the government.
Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that
actually happens.
If
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
#index top up prev next
___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or
On 2004-07-21 11:10:33 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andrew Suffield:
I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
programs?
The license itself mentions program several times, the FSF writes on
Actually, it usually mentions Program many times, which
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Andrew Suffield:
The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
explicitly labeled as documentation license should address this
issue.
I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
bunch of
would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
and
didn't even
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code
is not available to the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, what is it you want to do ? You are just angry that the licence is not
BSD and that you can do anything you want with it, that's it. Seriously, no
sympathy from me, as you clearly intented to make proprietary modifications.
No, I'd be happy with a
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:38:57AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, what is it you want to do ? You are just angry that the licence is not
BSD and that you can do anything you want with it, that's it. Seriously, no
sympathy from me, as you
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you
move to kill this discussion now by spamming the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:31:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040721 11:58]:
Well, the fact that some national country has bullshit law (and this goes for
both the US and France in regard to crypto), is of no consequence to the
DFSG.
Just move our servers out of the US, and into free country, and everyone will
be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement
for
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm not convinced that applies. The clase is These items, when
distributed, are subject to the following requirements - what does
when distributed mean? At the point at which they are distributed? If
distributed once, these must
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:10:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
possible, I think, that a microprocessor company might want to modify
GCC to make it handle some new instructions that are highly
confidential, then
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
to use the software in question.
Of course, but
Edmund Grimley-Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:15:26AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Why shaky? When an clause results in discriminating against people,
groups or fields of endeavor (of course within the limits of free
software[1]) then the licence is non-free. Why should we make
a difference between explicit
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That things get particularly weird with the copyright regime when patents
are held to affect the same works as copyrights is an indictment of the
practice of both patenting and copyrighting software, not an indictment of
our license
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that to be a fee consistent with the expansion of Free Software.
In order to distribute modified binaries, I have to licence my source to the
recipient as well. That has clear freedom-enhancing properties (Now With
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of to upstream being worse than
source if binaries.
As will I, but I'll also claim that to upstream is still not non-free.
Firstly, there's an advancing freedom argument --
ensuring
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
upstream
with every change done should
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in
a
newspaper is regarded as effective notification if it meets some
In international
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
clarification of intent with regards to those issues?
If so, that may be of
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:20:37PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of to upstream being worse than
source if binaries.
As will I, but I'll also claim that to upstream is still not
It seems to me that the QPL is trying to address cases where someone
might try to use otherwise independent contractual agreements to prevent
the distribution of QPL licensed code.
And, it seems to me, that some peopl see a conflict between the way the
QPL has expressed this and their
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
whatever reason). That clause applies to *any*
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in
debian
mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame.
Other people succeed in remaining polite after
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:55:16AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
information an important one?
I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but:
- The information in question will be
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
Well, in the orginal summary, there was no mention of
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
Because the QPL'd version need not be released to wide distribution, which
results in
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a
problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive
license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an
all-permissive license is obnoxious, but
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider that to be a fee consistent with the expansion of Free Software.
In order to distribute modified binaries, I have to licence my source to the
recipient as well. That has
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edmund Grimley-Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve this.
Well, and if you get no answer at all, what would you
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:06:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Yes, you say you got legal advice. But you don't say what it was!
Not even over there. The specifics of that advice make it useless.
Was it just for your jurisdiction? Well, choice-of-law makes that
OK.
Well, in any case, it
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
otherwise. For that matter, do you see
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:55:26AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
Because the QPL'd
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
downstream recipient may choose to keep such code private.
And it could work the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:31:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-21 17:44:16 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it
would be good to rebut or resolve
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
It seems to me that the QPL is trying to address cases where someone
might try to use otherwise independent contractual agreements to prevent
the distribution of QPL licensed code.
And, it seems to me, that some peopl see a
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'll get to the other two in a
Is there a way software can be made free in that sort of situation
which is acceptable to people who like to discuss the DFSG? If not,
is there some reason we should think that's a good thing for the free
software community?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:07:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
It seems to me that the QPL is trying to address cases where someone
might try to use otherwise independent contractual agreements to prevent
the distribution of QPL licensed code.
And, it
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
Why is privacy an inherent right? Why does personal
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial
developer, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced
distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style
permissions grant. Upstream could subsume it into their
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But second, it uses better template code -- its idea of how to compile
a for loop over short integers is beautiful. The structures into
which it compiles a break-free switch statement are elegant. There is
much creativity there.
But the creativity
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:08:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Alternatively, a clean recapitulation of all this would be a good thing
right
now maybe.
Quite possibly. I think that starting a clean thread for each
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 13:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, i wonder if this is as dramatic as it seems, since after all it only
furthers the distribution of the source code, and it is only fair that the
original author, whose work was freely given away so that the work linked with
the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
Why is
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
downstream recipient may choose to keep
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I
also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and
tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I
feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output
of a compiler might contain copyrightable
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The it seems that we've reached an impasse at this level of detail, since it
could well be argued that forced distribution upstream can impede or enhance
free software and freedom in general. As such, you can't say that
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute
Brian the Program except as expressly provided under this
Brian License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense
Brian or distribute the Program is
s/when/once
Yes. That's one of the parts of the GPL I'm least happy about. I'm
not sure the FSF really have a situation in mind where rights are
re-extended. But I don't think it's non-free -- just audaciously strict.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only
have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the
all-permissive license to the original
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian == Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only
have a problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the
Matthew == Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use
it and sells it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer
? And how is it fairer as
Matthew Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody has the
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Additionally, I cannot conceive of any way of doing this in a free way
-- even if forced distribution to upstream on distribution of
modifications is accepted as free. Can I say that you must send me
modifications to the software I write every time you
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm still
interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of the QPL
discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly important to
actually bring to the project; they keep coming up again in
Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses.
The main changes are:
* I've converted it to reST to make it easy to read in plain text and convert to
HTML or what have you.
* The summaries by license have been changed to four sections: by 2.0, by-sa
2.0,
I've been following this list for almost 3 years now. I've read a lot of
things that have upset me, seen poorly formulated arguments, and lots of
unnecessary flaming. I've only contributed a few times in the past, but
reading this Draft Summary really set me off. Yes, I saw the debate on
On 2004-07-22 00:53:18 +0100 Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Yes, I saw the debate on this
when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
Summarising the discussions so
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm think of an analogy with a certain children's toy called a spirograph.
You may have heard of it, or maybe not. It basically consists of a large
ring, with cog teeth on the
96 matches
Mail list logo
