On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:15:10AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
Having a country non-free doesn't make a license non-free. In the chinese
dissident test the user chooses to fight against the bloody murderer (who
wears an uniform) -- he breaks
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:40:39PM +, John Halton wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:05PM -0800, Eitan Isaacson wrote:
3. The translation tables that are read at run-time are considered
part of this code and are under the terms of the GPL. Any changes to
these tables and any
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:20:56AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
In other words, the desert island test is a way of expressing [...]
So long as you add the rider that some of the debian-legal subscribers
believe it (and some of the other common tests) are ridiculously
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:26:18PM +0100, Sam Clegg wrote:
In principal, we also do not object to have Perforce binaries included
in the non-free part of the debian distribution, as long as it is clear
that you are the sole distributor and maintainer of the packages and
Perforce is in no way
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:31PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
vote.
Please note that GR-2006-001
Olive wrote:
non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by
no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp
masters or a vote can decide litigious cases.
Uh, litigious cases get decided by a court presumably. Contentious might
be the
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:12:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular, going by the GPLv3:
] The System Libraries of an executable work [...]
So I've done the here's what the license says, let's parse it to see
if we can extract any meaning thing, but I haven't done it the other
way
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
===
I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
and appreciate
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:19:03PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Anthony Towns,
[...]
It appears that You are distributing firebird2-common in violation
of IPL section 3.6, and therefore in violation of copyright law in
many jurisdictions.
Okay, so the extent of your complaint is that you don't
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:03:37PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main?
Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough
bug to change
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:43:17PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
So where is the source for old versions stored? The alioth CVS is not
publicly available.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:16:45PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
According To Anthony Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because IANADD/IANAL
On Fri
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG.
This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars:
The MPL is an accepted license for main. I'm sorry your opinion differs,
and that the views of other
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
===
We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
system.
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 03:45:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007, Steve King wrote:
You'll notice that we have no permission to distribute modified
versions of dcraw.c as required by the DFSG.
I don't agree with you here. It seems to me that we do have
permission to
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:
http
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 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 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
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
Francesco Poli worries:
It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
interface of my modified
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying
to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner.
You know, beyond the initial offensiveness
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] but when either group purports to be stating official
Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy,
that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:47:34AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's likewise nice to see we're back to -legal not being a mailing
list, but an unconstituted advisory body that manages to be a
responsible body, somehow.
Yeesh.
The distinction above
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:48:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/trademarks.html
] Just to be clear, the two debian logos are currently under the restrictive
] copyright licences described on http://www.debian.org/logos/ (set by
] votes in 1999) and not currently
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
loss at all.
I think that Debian would very much
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:09:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why doesn't it matter? If I've been sued because of something I've actually
done that infringed the license, then surely the DFSG and Debian shouldn't
be concerned with that (other than the question of whether what I've done is
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:08:31AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
That's true, as an ideal. In reality, you can't expect every DD or even
maintainer to subscribe to -legal except when they've got a particular
problem to discuss.
Sure, but you don't need or want that. All you need is an
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last
resort, and the only other options we
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns writes:
[...] And as far as the actual effects go,
I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:25:41AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Non-developer, non-maintainer, non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from
being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned
about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect
people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis
with counter arguments, come
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
have that freedom[1]. [...]
[1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the right to not be
sued in a venue where I have no legal presence.
Err,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO,
you need to argue the same thing
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:30:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Obviously (I hope), I don't consider you to be inexperienced in free
software development, [...]
To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what its
contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:07:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition
of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open
source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll
distribute
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The troll checklist:
Heh. Free advice: the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
say if you use my software in a way that I didn't want you to, I'll sue
you in a court that
for them.
Should someone be willing to do that, and a court is willing to go
through all those steps with a choice of venue clause, what makes you
think they'd not do so in the absence of one?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL
have never been accepted in main.[1]
star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...]
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
CDDL have never
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice
of venue is in place.
That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think
|||/
V: 1--2 troup James Troup
V: 1144 ajt Anthony Towns
V: -1-2 rmurray Ryan Murray
V: 12-3 rdonald Randall Donald
V: 1342 joerg Joerg Jaspert
V: 1141 jeroen Jeroen van Wolffelaar
which would've resulted in Option 1 winning if ftpmaster were
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or
trademarks.
It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifically. It does talk
about licensing, but it doesn't
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hey all,
Scanning through the RC bug list and there seem to be a lot of bugs of
the form foo is unsuitable for main because xyzzy license is non-free
and foo cannot be redistributed because of barbazquux.
I'm inclined to think there should be a regular tag for these bugs,
perhaps licensing.
It
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:15:20AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd love to see a legal opinion from the SPI lawyers regarding who would be
liable if Debian did commit copyright infringment (or whatever) and someone
sued.
FWIW, there's a few things I'd love to see legal opinions on too,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
If people who aren't members are raising valid concerns that need to be
addressed before development can proceed, we shouldn't reject that input on
the basis of membership and call it blocking development.
Right. But it's also
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
So what am I trying to do?
Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
should be, and arguably
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
So what am I trying to do?
Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved in
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards
improving the current license
There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:47:03AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I am becoming increasingly concerned at the unilateral method in which
you and/or the archive maintainers have taken this decision.
The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
should be, and arguably IS,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
Directors.
If SPI wish
(-devel dropped)
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:25:13AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
A few possible problems are:
- The promise was made without consideration (no symbolic one cent payment)
That's not true; they received assistance from Debian developers including
myself on reviewing the
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
on this mailing
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply
is none.
The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for
Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal
were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant
written legal
sure Debian's viewed the right way, it's both to help our users get
software they need, free or not, and to encourage more people to make
their software free.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
three times the usual
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2006, you wrote:
As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences
actually examine this one?
Yes.
I take it you were too busy to elaborate on this when you wrote this
email.
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
First off, I'm going to completely ignore the FAQ as the FAQ and the
license both specifies that the FAQ does not have any legal validity.
Repeating frequently asked questions that have already been answered
isn't terribly useful.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:32:12AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I think the sentiment that produced this voting pattern was a desire
not to see any more emails about the GFDL. For example, Anthony Towns
wrote [1]:
I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
The Project did not tell us why.
You could ask, you know.
You still can do that, you know, if you actually want the answer.
If we just ask, we're probably not going to get
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:54:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
When I'm sending a message to debian-legal, yes, I often use us to
mean the participants on debian-legal. I intend only to save a little
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:17:37PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The Project essentially told us our conclusion ??? the GFDL is not free ???
is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections.
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
The Project did not
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 05:02:22PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
problems is arcade machines. It's clearly public performance, and players
in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
We
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
that, and as
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I disagree with your calling licensing in a DFSG-free manner as
giving up rights: this seems to imply
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 06:59:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:38:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
It resembles describing charity as investment with no return.
Perhaps; though there are differences
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is
right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping
stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open?
You know, I was going to say
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
non
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
distributable.
Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
stuff from the free stuff.
I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
fight that?
Even within
thing changes depending on the situation?
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of course, DFSG-free isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting
on, but the right to MIT/X11 recordings of presentations too -- not
even giving presenters the option to copyleft the recording
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 good
[-devel dropped]
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:00:08AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040416 10:25]:
Because when you have a compile-time dependency you create a derived
work -- vmlinuz -- of both the GPLed work and the firmware. Creating
derived works
organisations that're trying to support open
source are going to be eager to address our concerns -- and demonstrate
their involvement in the community -- although I'm also pretty sure
it's going to take a while and some effort to work out a way for them
to actually do that.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony
to look into this issue,
and ideally others?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
. This
] will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
-- http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda
, and they certainly weren't Stallman's; they were that of
some members of the FSF.
I realise -legal has entered into Let's rant and rave and be as
uncooperative as possible mode, which might make the above somewhat
pointless, but hey, it's a free country, right?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
.
No, the best thing to do is to *contact the upstream copyright holder*.
That's true whether it's flagrant or not, and given neither myself nor
the glibc maintainers are convinced, it's hardly clear that it is.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
pgpYCtmvciPsp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
. The way you demonstrate it's independent from other works,
is by demonstrating it's *different* to other works.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test
or would
be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe',
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can
the terms of the GPL.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
pgpFzJqyDaI8N.pgp
Description: PGP
, since if you're
distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all.
Consider, as another example, the following program:
#!/bin/sh
# Capital-AJ version 1.0
# Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# All rights reserved
find /foo -type f
be made by anyone else.
Fortunately copyright law is mostly about expression, rather than ideas,
and it's usually easy to express the same idea differently, making this
a non-issue.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself
, the Artistic license does.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
pgpl9VlSAKDyq.pgp
Description: PGP
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
source tree, presumably
-- but there's
no point making that decision before we have to.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid
...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgpVZ2M7ac6Nx.pgp
Description
1 - 100 of 307 matches
Mail list logo
