On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we pick
> our battle, and our battle is Debian main". I care about starving children,
> but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots
> of
(FWIW, this is probably more of a d-project thing; d-legal is more about
figuring out whether licenses are free and safe.)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:24:58AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.
Why not (and "says who")? If they're worth anything at al
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:12:31 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
> My impression in this case is: the MPL is non-free,
I agree.
[...]
> It seems to take
> a lot of squeaky-wheeling to get a non-free license treated as such
> these days, and that takes a lot of energy.
Indeed. :-(
>
> In any eve
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>
>>Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
>>that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
>
> I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-fr
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf
> > is an event through which we get public attention and can thus
> > spread our philosophy. The message really works
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:22 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> [I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
> it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]
Thanks.
>
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main,
> that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled?
I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free.
That does mean I agree tha
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:01:27PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with
> > the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The
> > presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive
> > suggests (but
As the KJV was crown copyrighted in the 1600s, section 171 states that
unless crown privilege is explicitly repealed, the act does not affect
it.
According to Wikipedia the printing of the KJV is heavily controlled
by several institutions, eg Cambridge uni and oxford.
Maybe they could be contacte
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
>>in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
>>be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says "You
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
>>> stop
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please
> stop this "The only code under the MPL is Mozilla" argument?
It's not an "argument"--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non-
free based on whether or
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it
>> in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would
>> be rejected for that reason. Exhibit
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "The SugarCRM Public License Version ("SPL") consists of the Mozilla Public
> > License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the
> > Additional
> > Terms in Exhibit
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:48:29PM +0100, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm :
> http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html
>
> and i need some advices about licence issue :
> http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.
Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The SugarCRM Public License Version ("SPL") consists of the Mozilla Public
> License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional
> Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at:
> http://www.mozil
hi all,
i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm :
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html
and i need some advices about licence issue :
http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php
the first lines :
"The SugarCRM Public License Version ("SPL") consists
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:24:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> debian-legal has reviewed this topic before. You can read it in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html Some of
> the links there have rotted, but it seemed clearly not Crown
> copyright.
I don't see a conclusive answe
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> If there is still an issue, I suppose we could start a non-GB section :-)
If we do, then maybe it should contain a copy of peter pan, which
has a clause in the law such that it never expires[1].
cheers
stuart
[1] http://www.gosh.org/about_us/peterpan/copyright.html
-
[I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license
> means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a DebC
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is
> an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our
> philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with
> our philosophy, IMHO.
We do not
debian-legal has reviewed this topic before. You can read it in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html
Some of the links there have rotted, but it seemed clearly not
Crown copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible
Wikipedia asserts that the KJV is
22 matches
Mail list logo
