-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've packaged FlameRobin - wx GUI for manipulating Firebird databases.
Upstream: www.flamerobin.org
The upstream source is licensed under Initial Developer Public License
1.0. There is also an external library, which source is included in
upstrea
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
> and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
> event an application does not supply such function or table, the
> facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with r
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:16:40PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket
> > what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is
> > being dist
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:00:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take
> > when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this
> > one una
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
> > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
>
> By this reasoning, we should reject every package for wh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:08:33 -0300 Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
> > right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
> > for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
> > example, which even Micros
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, actually, my country's government doesn't give a flying fruit basket
> what *another* country says copyright protections should be; if the work is
> being distributed in the US, it's US copyright law that applies, because in
> th
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:58:37 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:03 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, we are not imposing anything on our users. They are
> > > free to not install such software
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:33:23PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
> > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
> By this reasoning, we should reject
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments
> > were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of
> > venue is a small (or p
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis
>> it *is* free, since the DFSG tend to not allow a copyright owner to
>> impose costs on users.
>
> By that reasoning nothing is DFSG free,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I believe "negligible" includes your viewpoint.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics; I believe I made my viewpoint quite
clear.
> My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis
> it *is* free, since the DFS
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think
>> the marginal cost is a negligible one.
>
> It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases
> the risk to an unacceptab
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:51:31PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I'd simply advocate that we stop distributing material copyrighted by
> citizens of Kraplakistan[1]. I don't think we should use the DFSG to try
> and change legal systems. As many others on this list have said in the past
> as well,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> David Nusinow writes:
> > I don't feel that this argument was ever effectively countered. There's no
> > explicit cost or discrimination such as "send me five dollars" or "no
> > black people can use this software". Because of this, t
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think
> the marginal cost is a negligible one.
It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases
the risk to an unacceptable level IMO.
--Adam
--
To
David Nusinow writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Adam McKenna writes:
>> > The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street,
>> > for
>> > that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not.
>>
>> Please go
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:30:47PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
> > software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
> > this issue
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
> software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
> this issue.
What if the People's Republic of Kraplakistan made a law that all
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:18:00PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> As you pointed out, choice of venue does not introduce the risk of
> being sued: it adds to the expected cost of being sued. How do you
> express choice of venue as a risk?
Its effect is a slightly higher risk than a license which d
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
> > meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
> > freedoms. Nor is p
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments
>> were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of
>> venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of
>> di
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is
> meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those
> freedoms. Nor is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying
> non-freeness in ter
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
> > The copyright holder can sue users (or even random people off the street,
> > for
> > that matter) whether he put a choice of venue clause in his license or not.
>
> Please go back and read the rest of this
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments
> were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of
> venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of
> discrimination, it can be igno
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
>> is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
>> he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
> know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
By this reasoning, we should reject every package for which someone holds
copyright, because it is inconve
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:36:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is totally irrelevant. What
> is relevant is that the user is required to give up a legal protection
> he normally has -- for no better reason than the convenience of the
> copyright holder to
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have said before, this mostly boils down to a convenience factor.
> This clause makes the venue convenient for the copyright holder in matters
> of enforcement, as opposed to making it convenient for the (suspected)
> copyright violator. That's
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri writes:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution
>> >>rights
>> >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Marco d'Itri writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
> >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
> >>license more
> Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
> right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
> for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
> example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of
> contractual obligation to provide access t
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > > > section 3 of the LGPL.
> > >
> > > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD
> On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > > section 3 of the LGPL.
> >
> > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
> > distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > section 3 of the LGPL.
>
> Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
> distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
> 3 cla
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:08:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:05:32PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
> > If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones. If they don't
> > relate to the
> I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCR
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/16/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> As an anarchist I
>> >
>> > You're brainwashed GNUtian.
>>
>> Wow.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GPL-incompatible
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
and 2d (...you must make a go
On 9/16/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> As an anarchist I
> >
> > You're brainwashed GNUtian.
>
> Wow.
Anarchists are anti-copyright and against fake free softw
On Friday 16 September 2005 17:22, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > GPL-incompatible
> > >
> > > Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
> >
> > That's A
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1. the GPL can only restrict the distributions of an original work or
> its derivatives;
Modulo "first sale" (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic).
> and
>
> 2. the only way to determine if a work is a derivative work o
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> As an anarchist I
>
> You're brainwashed GNUtian.
Wow.
I think that's the *least relevant* rejoinder I've ever seen.
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Compan
> We SHOULD be taking an individual work and analyzing it
> for creative content. Not cooking up arbitrary hypotheses
> and pretending they mean something
I am going to try taking some hours this weekend and verify one
of the programs + libcurl + openssl cases. I'll get back to you
next week.
>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > GPL-incompatible
>
> Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
-Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > GPL-incompatible
> >
> > Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
>
> That's April Fool's Day.
It runs all year long in the GNU Republic.
regards,
ale
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Are you asking to put FSF's officers in jail?
I'm not an Attorney General. But to fulfill your curiosity, I'd rather
"extradite" the entire gang to North Korea with no right to return.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help when someone final
Michael Poole wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
("We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these
answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law
professor Eben Moglen.")
Que
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
Given that
> GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a l
On Friday 16 September 2005 14:26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution
> > rights free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk
> > imposed by the license more free than one measured in hundredths of
Marco d'Itri writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
>>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
>>license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
> Because it's not obviously
Scripsit Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I have been reading the huge thread about the CDDL and its clause of
>venue, and I'm wondering.. Lets imagine a CDDL license without this
>clause, would it be classified as free?
Andrew Suffield has been trying to summarize the CDDL-sp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
>license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent?
Because it's not obviously a "cost".
--
ciao,
Marco
Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been reading the huge thread about the CDDL and its clause of
>venue, and I'm wondering.. Lets imagine a CDDL license without this
>clause, would it be classified as free?
I think there are also:
* required identification and inde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
>make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
> > that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the
> > only
> > thing that might help when someone finally decides to
Hi all,
I have been reading the huge thread about the CDDL and its clause of
venue, and I'm wondering.. Lets imagine a CDDL license without this
clause, would it be classified as free?
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do any of these choice of venue clauses impinge on simple redistribution?
> If so, I'd *definitely* be against those specific ones.
Yes. The only thing that allows simple redistribution is the license,
and you don't get the license without accepting th
61 matches
Mail list logo
