.html
--
Glenn Maynard
be a real-world problem.
--
Glenn Maynard
; hopefully
you'll accept it as a complement that I consider the notion that your opinion
should be ignored to be absurd. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
. This permission
grant is self-contradictory, and can not safely be used at all. Unless
there are other options available, I'd assume this software isn't
distributable, even in non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
that you know
English well enough to read licenses in order to fully understand your
rights to modify software in Debian is unavoidable.
--
Glenn Maynard
the QPL, if it could be extracted from C; but
C as a whole still seems to be a future version of B, and it's not available
under the QPL.)
--
Glenn Maynard
a solution. Use it. But please don't try to force your
solution on other people who may be perfectly happy, or even happier,
with a licence in French.
I don't think just don't use the software is an acceptable solution.
--
Glenn Maynard
licenses, and understanding and acknowledgement of problems they may have,
are very useful.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
This does not mean they can't use the code in products not licensed
under the QPL. With clause #3b, contributors have to give them
permission to do so. The clause only means they can't take submitted
code for proprietary works and
. These seem to be two very
different interpretations.
Could you clarify your position?
--
Glenn Maynard
it'd be my own fault.)
--
Glenn Maynard
to know what they do, and whatever it is, you're
interested in it; all I know is this license. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
of Free Software. I don't think there's any point to us arguing
further on that point.
--
Glenn Maynard
of this tutorial
with such a reference.
I agree that it's GPL-incompatible, that it's DFSG-free, and that it
sucks badly.
--
Glenn Maynard
under the terms of the QPL restriction.
He doesn't have that permission himself. How can he possibly give it to
others? If he can't release just under the GPL, how can he allow me to?
But of course I may be wrong.
IANAL.
So could I (and neither am I), but I don't see it.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
The requirement is built into the LGPL (#3), and LGPL#10 bolts it in
(with the these permissions must be preserved clause).
--
Glenn Maynard
confusion over the BSD and MIT licenses. This is one reason I didn't
like the BSDPL; the BSD name associated it with the BSD license
despite having nothing in common with it, which can confuse casual
licensors (most free software authors).
--
Glenn Maynard
to them yourself,
if you think they'd be interested; you'll have better luck with that than
asking us to send blind emails to people we know nothing about. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
release a patch, you can
only do so under QPL#3; by sending your patch to Sven, you're releasing
it (to him), and so you've granted the license to INRIA (the initial
developer of the Software).
This seems to follow directly from the license.
--
Glenn Maynard
/1998/11/msg02323.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02443.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00323.html
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:27:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge
that.
The GPL
explicitly denies you that.
Where am I wrong?
--
Glenn Maynard
that this type of requirement
doesn't fail DFSG#5, or do you not have an opinion on that? I ask because
disagreeing with this particular example doesn't imply disagreement with
the DFSG#5 counterargument, so I just want to be clear.
--
Glenn Maynard
that the realities of debian release management
is allowed to override the Social Contract. Sven is mistaken.
--
Glenn Maynard
to be interpreting DFSG#10 as a
grandfather clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or
the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to
redistribute derived works under different terms than those I received
myself; DSFG#3.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:49:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:51:36AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
Apparently Sven thinks that the realities of debian release management
is allowed to override the Social
that would permit text to
cross between the docs and the source, with the source being unalterably
LGPL? (The LGPL is a somewhat strange license, and I don't understand its
nuances as well as the GPL's.)
--
Glenn Maynard
that thinks DFSG#4 needs fixing. I'd hope few people here find
your argument is invalid because of your opinion convincing.
--
Glenn Maynard
license is a sort of subset of the QPL: you can release your
changes to everyone and avoid the problem.)
Rejecting a license because it does this in a single license would be
strange, if it would be allowed in dual-licensing form.
[1] ignoring DFSG#3 for the sake of this separate argument
--
Glenn
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
the code under a completely difference license; for example, you can't
link the code with GPL
thus be incorportated in your own code
base, provided upstream incorporate your work.
The QPL requires that I give special permission to the original author to
incorporate my changes. It does not give me that permission in return if he
does so.
--
Glenn Maynard
due to QPL#3b. All other QPL#3 requirements went
with it, including the give special permission requirement. The *only*
limitation the special permission places is that the software remain
available under the terms of the QPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
would
fail and pass (respectively) in the same way with this modification.
--
Glenn Maynard
before, in precisely the same way:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00061.html
--
Glenn Maynard
beyond copyright), but they don't
talk about use.
--
Glenn Maynard
to want protection, then surely putting every user (which
includes other free software developers, reusing code or forking, who live
in other parts of the world) at the same risk is a dubious trade.
[1] kind of; you can't do that anyway, so it's usually a no-op
--
Glenn Maynard
clause, chosen by
the original author.
--
Glenn Maynard
--it causes
rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that.
--
Glenn Maynard
Bruce Perens walking in on a debate and attempting to hand down Word from
Above without actually addressing any of the arguments that have been
presented, as if three hundred posts of debate can be settled beyond
dispute in just one ...
--
Glenn Maynard
not use this
software to spam.
--
Glenn Maynard
requiring distribution of source that's 600 times the size
of the actual data being served by the daemon is reasonable at all.
All of this aside, this still looks like a use restriction. Are there
any functional use restrictions which we currently allow?
--
Glenn Maynard
is not the solution, even if it is injust in your
opinion.
I'd recommend against making claims to what the FSF will or won't do.
(Remember, the FSF holds copyright to a large quantity of GPL-licensed
code.)
--
Glenn Maynard
with the rationale the license says we can't
do this, but that's unenforcable, so we'll just ignore the author's wishes.
--
Glenn Maynard
on
proprietary architectures, such as (AFAIK) SymbianOS and most gaming
consoles (eg. Xbox). I think the FSF wouldn't consider that a problem,
but it leads to the same reimplementation waste that the GPL does.
--
Glenn Maynard
requirements; the LGPL was explicitly
intended to allow this case, where the GPL was explicitly intended to forbid
it.
[1] among other GPL-incompatible things
--
Glenn Maynard
possibly hope to, at
least--and so I think this type of discussion is useful (within reason).
(Obviously, IANAL, TINLA, etc.)
--
Glenn Maynard
people wouldn't use him as an example of how to handle legal
issues, as he sets, as far as I can tell, a horribly bad example.
--
Glenn Maynard
the access denied page
--
Glenn Maynard
in an attempt to coerce me into using
my ISP's SMTP servers, which I don't trust.
Rant-linking, instead of rant-duplicating:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00025.html
--
Glenn Maynard
not, unless it's actually
happening.
--
Glenn Maynard
time debating (or
even to spend time coming up with a more diplomatic way of saying so).
--
Glenn Maynard
for the above reason), but I don't
think it's a good thing in general. I should decide my security philosophy,
not anyone else.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:11:12AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I won't overgeneralize; some free licenses do place restrictions on
security-
related decisions (the GPL prevents me from adding some security-related
features
in this case; because Mutt just
does the right thing, I've never had to worry about it.
--
Glenn Maynard
in the normal, appropriate places (copyright
notices, etc). I wouldn't even put my own name in my advertisements; it's
irrelevant ...
--
Glenn Maynard
is list policy default. You only need to worry about setting it if you do.
--
Glenn Maynard
to accept, at least.)
(I've always felt those two clauses are conflicting, since the acknowledgement
is promotion, too. Don't use our name to promote products, but you must
use our name in your advertisements? Huh?)
--
Glenn Maynard
case to consider, but I don't think it's a way out of the source-for-images,
etc. question, because in many of these cases, the preferred form for
modification really does exist, and really is preserved for future modification.
--
Glenn Maynard
developers.
Wow.
--
Glenn Maynard
consensus that choice of venue clauses should be
discouraged, certainly?
I hope so, but should be discouraged doesn't help much; too many people
are hell-bent on getting software into Debian, Free Software be damned ...
--
Glenn Maynard
; I think they're aiming to reduce #2, as well, and that's
hard to do without either special cases, or new generalizations that may
backfire.
--
Glenn Maynard
looking for. The best that could be
hoped for is common language to grep for, which usually works to a degree,
but it's not reliable ...
--
Glenn Maynard
be satisfied with it, since the point is usually
to allow integrating the code.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Assufield
Is this intended to be a witty play on Andrew's name? I'd have hoped
that grade school name-calling, at least, was above DD's ...
--
Glenn Maynard
on potentially evil
upstreams is a disservice and an insult to every reasonable-minded upstream.
Well, we disagree here; I'll forego debating it, since that's been done
already.
--
Glenn Maynard
Miller, Matthew Palmer, Walter Landry, and myself.
Informal and inexact as my reading of these people's posts may be, I
honestly think you overstate the disagreement on this issue ...
--
Glenn Maynard
* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS,
contributory infringement).
--
Glenn Maynard
feel he's overstating
the disagreement.
--
Glenn Maynard
either of these
a fee is a stretch.)
--
Glenn Maynard
to this software.
GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the
tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any
different?
I don't typically lose my license under the GPL due to actions taken that
have nothing at all to do with the work.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS,
contributory infringement
of the package is in violation of the license,
there's a problem, though. (Debian wouldn't distribute an installer for
a program whose license said no auto-installers, even in non-free, I hope.)
--
Glenn Maynard
this further.
--
Glenn Maynard
.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
of d-legal (who
, since that results in the
discussion rebooting).
--
Glenn Maynard
, you clearly have no interest in being
convinced otherwise, so I won't waste time debating this.)
--
Glenn Maynard
agreed on.
--
Glenn Maynard
best to
be careful and explicit with issues like this.
For example, all (known) GPL projects in Debian which link against OpenSSL
have such an exception, because it has an advertising clause, as well as
forced-renaming and a forced-acknowledgement clauses.
--
Glenn Maynard
is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
--
Glenn Maynard
infrastructure for that doesn't make it any less
important.
(Whether or not this is an issue with using the GPL for manuals, I have
no idea.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Readline with your program.
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
--
Glenn Maynard
. (In practice, it's very
rare for d-legal to not be able to reach a reasonable consensus on
a real issue.)
*rotfl* Good joke. I suppose it depends on what you mean by
consensus.
(It's very clear, from this statement, that you have little experience with
d-legal.)
--
Glenn Maynard
weak.)
It isn't a GPL violation, I believe, for me to have a program which
links against a GPL library and a GPL-incompatible library, as long as I
don't distribute binaries which do both at once. This seems in line
with the above: the derivative work is created at compile time.
--
Glenn Maynard
license clauses that
make the situation even worse? I don't buy we can't make the world
perfect, so we should give up entirely arguments at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
bugs.
[1] rules lawyer (n): one who brings out dict(1) to argue an interpretation
of the DFSG. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
with them. Do
you agree, at least, that these fonts contain programs? If so, do you
think they should require source? If not, why not, and how could a
reasonable definition express that?
--
Glenn Maynard
by and in strict compliance at all times with RealNetworks'
third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted at
http://www.realnetworks.com/info/helixlogo.html.
--
Glenn Maynard
to eliminate it; as I've said, I disagree.
--
Glenn Maynard
thousand people made such a request.
--
Glenn Maynard
issue, and to my knowledge, no such license exists yet.
It does; it's a restriction, and DFSG#1 says may not restrict. (see
other posts messages re: fee being an example, not the only disallowed
restriction, may not distribute on Thursday, etc)
--
Glenn Maynard
behavior towards all of us.
If you think Sven and I are exagerating, let me toss out a few examples from
just the last couple of weeks:
Almost all of these are a direct consequence of Sven's behavior; we're
all tired of it, and none of us can be blamed for saying so.
--
Glenn Maynard
restrictions;
there are more and more of those on a daily basis, and modifying the DFSG
on a daily basis is bad. However, your notion of tightening may not be
the same as mine. Let's stop being vague: if you have a suggested change
to the DFSG, let's hear it, so we can talk about it specifically.
--
Glenn
intend.)
--
Glenn Maynard
).
--
Glenn Maynard
a trivial aggregate is generally
expected to satisfy this; anything stronger, such as must be bundled with
at least 10 megs of other stuff would probably be non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:05:13PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:19:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
weightings. Since these are mostly
, by definition, require interpretation and human
judgement to apply) into a definition, which can be implemented by
robots, please say so. You seem to think it's a bug that the DFSG
doesn't have bright-line tests for every possible non-free requirement;
such tests don't exist.
--
Glenn Maynard
to coerce contributors into not participating in a
discussion is highly contemptible.
... and requesting that his name not be spoken is laughable.
--
Glenn Maynard
501 - 600 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
