On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Francesco is not a lawyer,
>
> I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why you seem to have
>
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a
> sufficient disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."
> There are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice
> by those who not certified by the Bar Association
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient
disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice." There are laws,
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction
Steve Langasek wrote:
WTF, seriously? Reading this makes me want to go write some new code,
license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no
legal force.
Not non-free, just incredibly goofy; I
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the choice is between continuing to discuss without that acronym
> spelled out in full every message, or eliding it as understood, I
> far prefer the latter.
Meh. This twisted statement contains at least one error. The intent is
"discussion without spel
* Francesco Poli:
>> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis. We already have to,
>> because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
>> very common.
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
> GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance gu
* Steve Langasek:
>> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
>> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
>> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
>> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
On Sunday 01 July 2007 00:24, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient
> disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice." There are laws,
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
> certified by the Bar As
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:33:55 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
>
> >> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis. We already have
> >to, > because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved
> >are > very common.
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the d
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:20:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [...]
> > > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> > [...]
> > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > > display Appropriate Lega
* Francesco Poli:
>> To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
>> the SHING GPL.
>
> "SHING GPL" ?
"Sun HP IBM Nokia Google", major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:
| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> * Santiago Vila:
>
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundati
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 00:24:58 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> >
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The
> > usual disclai
Hi all again,
along with the GNU GPL v3, the final text of the GNU LGPL v3 has been
also published on 29 June 2007 by the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt
The only changes with respect to the second draft (released on 28 March
2007) seem to
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following.
>
> The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
> A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work.
> I receive work A and want to create a modified work
Hello,
does the compat matrix for draft3 http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq still
apply to the released version of LGPLv3?
If it does it could cause quite some pain, since LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His oth
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer, [...]
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message [...]
>
> Francesco... as I've sai
On Sun, Jul 1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
>
I don't understand this "of course", nor do I understand how the file we
point to relates to th
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
>
> Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
> respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on the
> matter.
> "Border-line" does not mean that it *fails* the DFSG, but that it's
> *very close* to fail.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> > * Santiago Vila:
> >
> > > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:43:27 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
[...]
> > In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
> > Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first
> > sentence of Section 5:
> >
> > | You
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:40:24 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> >
> > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with
> > respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on
> > the matter.
> > "Border-line" does not m
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> LGPLv3 libraries
> could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true.
AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in compiled form, the
GPLv2 insists that the libraries the program
> I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a DFSG
> issue.
The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO. If you have a
problem with what it's trying to do, you won't like it (the goal is
unchanged). If you have a problem with how it did it (the position th
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:22:30AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> >Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a
> >sufficient disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice." There
> >are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Firstoff, I'm not sure the "BSD" license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
> 4-clause BSD.
Currently, it is not, but it was. See Bug#43347.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 01 July 2007 09:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
> people on debian-legal as a whole. Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
> criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
> his local laws.
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
>> later" under the GPL version 3?
>> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
>> version 3 or lat
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less
> work for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to
> lots of packages) who have to update the copyright file every time
> license changes.
This reason doesn't make
Lots of questions since I last posted... lost of people getting testy. Can't
do much about that, but I will try to explain a few things based on what I
know from law school. First up, there is a pretty well established definition
for what constitutes "legal advice." It can be phrased as: "parti
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities:
> Before:
> GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
> Restriction: you can't do X
> Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:31:00AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law,
> although
> I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in
> the EU than the US, since these "no practice without a license" laws ar
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice.
> There is, however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for
> anybody representing someone else at trial to be legally trained. The
> title "asianajaja" (one of the Finnish terms referri
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
> against passing oneself off as an attorney.
Yes; Finland, Sweden and Estonia are apparently the only EU countries that have
no categorical rule prohibiting practic
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > No. Section #6 only applies to components "that link with the original
> > or modified versions of the Software". It doesn't apply to derived
> > works.
>
> I am afraid I am not following you.
>
> Section 6c of the QPL v1.0 rest
Le dimanche 01 juillet 2007 à 00:24 -0700, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> Francesco... as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient
> disclaimer. Nor is saying "this is not legal advice." There are laws,
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
> cert
Hello all,
I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
Gentoo logo.
And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork
license is available at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml
I'm asking about this because Gentoo logo have two differen
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:36:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> > I cannot see how you can say that "the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you
> > don't apply section #6".
> > How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in sectio
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
> > respect to the covered work,
> This cl
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[...]
> I will try to explain a few
> things based on what I know from law school. First up, there is a
> pretty well established definition for what constitutes "legal
> advice." It can be phrased as: "particular courses of action in
> resp
Steve Langasek wrote:
If I go to the effort of writing
This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in sect
Chris Waters writes:
> All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
> waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
> infringement).
Explain, please. There have been a number of copyright complaints
filed (in Germany and the US) over GPLed softwar
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:27:47 -0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > > When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to
> > > forbid
> > > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > > circumvention is effected by exercising r
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
>> against passing oneself off as an attorney.
>
> Yes; Finland, Sweden and Estonia are apparently the only EU countries that
> ha
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> > > GPLv2.
> > No, it's different from GPLv2 2c only in that it's extended to
> > "interactive user interfaces" instead of just programs that "read
> > command
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:59:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
> Gentoo logo.
> And if so which conditions those packages need to meet. Gentoo logo artwork
> l
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> It does not even seem to express certainty...
(I am not a professor of English)
The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.
At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about the
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
> I'd like to ask if Debian packages can include graphic that includes
> Gentoo logo. And if so which conditions those packages need to meet.
> Gentoo logo artwork license is available at
> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml
>
> I'm asking a
On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I will try to explain a few
> > things based on what I know from law school. First up, there is a
> > pretty well established definition for what constitutes "legal
> >
49 matches
Mail list logo
