On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
(unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
enter the scene... all
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
[License follows as inline MIME foo]
html2text is a piece of crap.
At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
analysis, that should
Sophos Plc MailMonitor for Domino/D R1.0(4.003c)
Server: RKWGMBH
---
Your email contained infected attachment(s). For advice consult your
system administrator.
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
project was not looking, I believe that it is based on
quote who=Michael Poole date=Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 08:55:31AM -0400
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has become
popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
You seem to be making a call for interpreting the DFSG literally. I
think this is impossible. We should stay as close to the spirit of the
DFSG and we should rely on the text as our best clue. However, things
will *always* come
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Michael On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
Michael boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think
that
Michael the
UMORIA 5.4, however, was released after the copyright law change. Anyway,
it contains additional copyright notices (Christopher J. Stuart, Joseph Hall,
etc.). They have not relicensed their work. So it appears that UMORIA 5.4
is not yet free software.
Joseph Hall has released his portions
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:23:42 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
For what it's worth, I do not believe that DFSG #5 is a sensible
reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free. The sensible
reason to consider choice-of-venue clauses non-free is the following
general principle:
A
It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. It could harm those who
have an agreement to offer support as an agent of an upstream
non-initial developer (like Epson service centre or whatever),
and maybe otherwise. Why should this licence be allowed to
restrict business relationships?
That is
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT.
The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives
enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough
permissions to *right-holders*.
That doesn't appear to be part of the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
propose an amendment to the SC.
The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where
software patents are
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
propose an amendment to the SC.
The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas
16 matches
Mail list logo
