Iain Nicol wrote:
If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.
My
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.
If this were true, the logical
Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 GPL with the advertising clause then?
I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one --
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 GPL with the advertising clause then?
I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.
The only
Adam Borowski wrote:
The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position.
This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying the list of rights the
user acquires with the software. This clause is not about making the
GNU Manifesto
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:00:38PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
Free Software, when it's really free and not merely a ruse to sneak some
proprietary crap through, makes us free from legal concerns -- both am I
allowed to use X? and I wouldn't want people to have a right to use Y
without
Adam Borowski wrote:
Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty. The voice can tell me a lot
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:09:53AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
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
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* 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
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0700
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.
Ha, speaking on
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:38:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
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
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, 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.):
Uh, no, you didn't:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Um, no. You shouldn't have used GPLv3 doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license [...]
Well, the
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 20:43:22 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
My case was:
Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot... :-(
Frankly speaking, it seems more similar to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:45:48 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
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 assertion in English has changed.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, 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
quote who=Anthony Towns date=Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:43:33AM -0400
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0700
I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a
DFSG
issue.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
distribute GPLv2-only compiled executables.
Unless the GPLv2-only work copyright holder(s)
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:52:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
distribute GPLv2-only
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
* 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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?
Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Um, no. You shouldn't have used GPLv3 doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency. If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco
Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
A patent license is discriminatory if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
1. Source Code.
The System Libraries of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:57PM -0400, Anthony Towns wrote:
The System Libraries of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b)
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Border-line implies that it could go either direction. This is
not true. Regardless of how you feel about this clause,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
discussed.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
good chance the
Scribit Anthony W. Youngman dies 02/07/2007 hora 21:37:
But do we really want to license everything which is GPL version 2
or later under the GPL version 3?
Actually, YOU CAN'T.
The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the
copyright.
Actually, the text seems to
On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other
countries have the right to respond in kind. Germany, for
31 matches
Mail list logo
