On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
> People will be motivated to create free alternatives if anyone agree
> that the fact that the license is non free. Do you really believe
> that many people will be motivated to create a "free" alternative of
> an OSI-certified license; which is considered free al
Debian does not contain non-free. I'm fine with Debian providing
non-free software, but it's not part of Debian, and I like that people
are motivated to create free alternatives. --
People will be motivated to create free alternatives if anyone agree
that the fact that the license is non
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
This is one of the most non-free and poorly written licenses I've seen
pass the list in a long time.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:47:39AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> (a) You must not introduce any virus, worm, trojan horse or malicious
> code into the Software;
Free Software must allow trans
Hi,
What do you all think of this license? I think this license may be
non-Free. The main part which I don't like is the 'Notify' definition.
This license is being used by an 'open-source' product now used by the
Australian Government (MySource CMS, available at
http://matrix.squiz.net).
Andrew
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
> > Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP
> > License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group
> > software. This claim has been upheld over
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:06:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There are no established policies, AFAIK. As long as trademark issues
> do not prevent creation and distribution of derivative works, or
> prevent an interoperable reimplementation, trademarks are outside
> Debian's scope.
If Debia
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:06:58 +0100 Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> I only found 3.0 and 3.01, please add license texts to your mail.
> Makes thinks easier.
>
> However:
> The license texts I found still contain the following point:
>
>
> 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain th
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:05:03 -0500 Charles Fry wrote:
> Once again, I repeat my claim: that the 3.01 version of the PHP
> License is equally fit for licensing PHP itself and PHP Group
> software. This claim has been upheld over months of sporadic
> discussion on the matter at debian-legal.
>
> Giv
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
> >>you to respect mine.
> >
> >
> > Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
> > central th
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The choice of whether to include a work is based on whether its license
is free. The definition of "free" is based, ultimately, on whether it
benefits free software or not.
I fully and completely disagree with this, although you're right that
Debian's
Charles,
I agree with you, but I think ftp master will not change.
I really do not have more time to this unfinished topic :(
Can you adopt these packages that have RC bugs because license ?
php-net-checkip
php-services-weather
I will be very grateful, as this packages are dependence from anothe
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having multiple points of view damages the free
software
Hi!
* José Carlos do Nascimento Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060202 12:49]:
> Hi, Im mantainer of two packages in Debian, and they have problems with
> php license 2.0.
>
> php group released new version of php license, solving problems with
> Debian.
> Is these version compatible with Debian
* Simon Josefsson:
> My question is: What is Debian's policy on trademarks for terms used
> in documentation and package descriptions?
There are no established policies, AFAIK. As long as trademark issues
do not prevent creation and distribution of derivative works, or
prevent an interoperable r
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
> you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having multiple points of view damages the free
software community. I've alread
It would be most helpful if we could make some progress on this issue.
There are a handful of RC bugs whose maintainers are trying to work with
their upstream authors to find resolution. In some cases the upstream
authors believe that the problem should be fixed with the new PHP
License. It is beco
Wow--you're actually arguing that invariant sections are free? (I
thought we were talking about the less blindingly obvious cases, like
anti-DRM restrictions or choice of venue--too many parallel threads,
perhaps.) This isn't a debated topic anymore; Debian agrees with me
unambiguously (see GR20
Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems that you should be able to tell people, in marketing
> materials, what is included in Debian. Like saying "Debian support
> IPSEC, TLS and Kerberos.". Claiming that on the CD cover seem to
> violate the request by MIT to not use the Kerbero
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:40:11PM +0400, olive wrote:
> the open source movement and the FSF): it is astonishing that licenses
> that "does not follow the DFSG" does follow the law of the open source
> movement which are exactly the same ones!
So now we're being inconsistent because our conclus
Hi, Im mantainer of two packages in Debian, and they have problems with
php license 2.0.
php group released new version of php license, solving problems with
Debian.
Is these version compatible with Debian , ?
Thanks
Jose Carlos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
The choice of whether to include a work is based on whether its license
is free. The definition of "free" is based, ultimately, on whether it
benefits free software or not. You're trying to bypass the process that
determines that, by handwaving wildly and saying "but anyway, who cares,
it woul
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:24:26AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:49:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
Glenn> > You seem to say that if a given license has conditions that would best
Glenn> > be removed to benefit free software then the license is by itself
Glenn> > non-free
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:49:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
> You seem to say that if a given license has conditions that would best
> be removed to benefit free software then the license is by itself
> non-free. But Debian does not choose the license of a given software; it
> just choose if will inc
Olive's argument seems to boil down to that, in order to avoid annoying
people, Debian should
- allow consessions (new restrictions that do not benefit Free Software;
that is, a one-way exchange), if they appear "minor". This is a chipping-
away at the standards of free software, allowing more
25 matches
Mail list logo
