" seems the latter; that
the GPL passes DFSG#1-9, due to DFSG#10. These seem to be two very
different interpretations.
Could you clarify your position?
--
Glenn Maynard
n't know them, even if somebody fluent in the language
claims I'm safe.
> [2]: http://www.cecill.info/
> [3]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (http://www.cecill.info/contacts.en.html)
I'd suggest that you send the results of any discussions 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
espite looking similar.
I'm only nitpicking on this point because I don't want unnecessary
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
dn't need further permissions
> to derive a work from A and B.
They always do so; if you don't give that permission, it's not the LGPL.
The requirement is built into the LGPL (#3), and LGPL#10 bolts it in
(with the "these permissions must be preserved" clause).
--
Glenn Maynard
ionally available 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
hat may not be a problem, since this is a tutorial and
not a reference, though it would prevent the incorporation 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
ore values is incorrect.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe forking and code reuse are core
values of Free Software. I don't think there's any point to us arguing
further on that point.
--
Glenn Maynard
uthor) don't have permission to give me permission
to do so--the above "provided" explicitly denies you that.
Where am I wrong?
--
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
, since I have no worry
of any substantial portion of Debian agreeing with it. You're free to
disregard my arguments if you wish--anyone can do that for any reason--but
don't assume others will do likewise.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/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
stand your argument. If you 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
s what you just did--because I think the
DFSG is imperfect and needs some fixing is insane. I'm hardly the only
person that thinks DFSG#4 needs fixing. I'd hope few people here find
"your argument is invalid because of your opinion" convincing.
--
Glenn Maynard
c reason why I, personally, find these clauses unfree:
patch clauses themselves are only permitted due to an exception, and this
is a super-patch clause that goes even further.
(As for the give-me-a-license-that-I-didn't-even-give-to-you issue, I'm
not sure. I need to think about it more.)
--
Glenn Maynard
lt with the LGPL, since it
assumes the work it's applied to is a library. I'm not sure, though.
CC to d-legal for comments. Is it a reasonable recommendation to put a wiki
under the LGPL? If not, is there any approach 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
es. I don't presently have any handy one-liners like "freedom
to private modifications" to summarize my disgust at this term, though.
(To be clear, patch clauses are explicitly free, for obvious reasons--though
as I've said I'd like that to change. I think "you must patch, *and* you
must permit me to incorporate your patches" goes beyond the DFSG exception.)
--
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&qu
r seriously discussed.)
I 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
r is a good guideline for freedom, being far too
narrow (for example, ignoring the "only on Monday" example). At least
for DFSG#1 wrt. the GPL, there's no need to be interpreting DFSG#10 as a
grandfather clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
and only shozs you have no grasp on the realities of
> > debian release management.
>
> 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 Contract. Sven is mistaken.
--
Glenn Maynard
here.
Do you also disagree with my general argument 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
to the software, some people just get more free
> rights. Because the QPL is a copyleft, that's a real problematic clause,
> because I can't licence my changes separately.
I think QPL3b's requirements fail DFSG#3, but not DFSG#5--and also would
fail and pass (respectively) in the same way with this modification.
--
Glenn Maynard
aived that
for the initial author 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
and so each get the same licence
> and the same benefit, in particular your right to claim upstream's code is a
> derived work of your own stuff, and can 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
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, yo
uld be
strange, if it would be allowed in dual-licensing form.
[1] ignoring DFSG#3 for the sake of this separate argument
--
Glenn Maynard
than a one-sided choice of venue clause, chosen by
the original author.
--
Glenn Maynard
the author is trying to protect himself against. It's
not at all clear that this is acceptable. If it's significant enough for
the author 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
igned
to.
[1] I'm not sure if advertising clauses count; they're something like use
restrictions (in that they seem to go beyond copyright), but they don't
talk about use.
--
Glenn Maynard
n't have grunted about it, except that it's happened
before, in precisely the same way:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00061.html
--
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
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.
--
Glenn Maynard
purpose of the restriction isn't what makes it a use restriction or
not. If it restricts use, it's a use restriction. This says "if you
use this program to generate stuff for others, do this and that"; that's
a use restriction by my understanding, just as is "you may not use this
software to spam".
--
Glenn Maynard
n source
> developers. Even so, they probably don't have the resource to sue you.
> However, breaking the law 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
a reference card, or a printed handout.
I don't think 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
the future.
The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code 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
compatibilities that
the GPL deliberately causes. I no longer use the GPL for my own work,
preferring the MIT license--do what you want, don't waste your time reinventing
the wheel.
I'm not going to change my opinion of what the GPL means because I don't like
it, though. :) Further, even if this didn't hold up in court, it would
still be bad practice to ignore the wishes of copyright holders; I hope there
aren't any packages in Debian 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
; * applies to Linux kernel modules. Our interpretation refers only
As far as I know, Linus has no real standing to make such "interpretations";
I really wish 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
ions or policies. However, I do believe that one of the
secondary uses of this list is to help people better understand free software
licensing issues--insofar as us phony non-lawyers can possibly hope to, at
least--and so I think this type of discussion is useful (within reason).
(Obviously, IANAL, TINLA, etc.)
--
Glenn Maynard
as well, which explicitly would have
> allowed dynamic linking).
The GPL and the LGPL have very different 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
n the ass" test.
[1] even if it's only for my own use, with a password--other people still
interact with it, when receiving the "access denied" page
--
Glenn Maynard
isted me 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
n by a
third party, which would place unfullable requirements, and fail DFSG#9.
We should worry about ambiguous licenses, but not about word-twisting
to claim a license says something that it does not, unless it's actually
happening.
--
Glenn Maynard
tisement (banner
ads) and requiring acknowledgement in the normal, appropriate places (copyright
notices, etc). I wouldn't even put my own name in my advertisements; it's
irrelevant ...
--
Glenn Maynard
actly how it should be set in this case; because Mutt just
does the right thing, I've never had to worry about it.
--
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
me from adding some security-related
features and not releasing the source 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
e or
> via a software filter to a MPEG-4 or Vorbis file).
I think this is too stupid an idea to even spend my time debating (or
even to spend time coming up with a more diplomatic way of saying so).
--
Glenn Maynard
der to fix."
> I think we *do* have 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
s your personal view of the issue, not shared among all
> developers.
Wow.
--
Glenn Maynard
es with Photoshop and don't bother saving the PSD, because
it's easier to just remember how to create it from scratch than to organize
and store that much source. I do think this is an important and very common
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
ertising clause ("must display the
following acknowledgement ..."), right? (For the no-endorsement clause,
that's reasoning that most people seem 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
s long as
> debian-legal itself is among the recipients.
You don't need to set MFT if you don't want a CC on Debian lists; not doing
so is list policy default. You only need to worry about setting it if you do.
--
Glenn Maynard
ou willingly violate the licence. I don't really buy the
> tentacle of evil argument, and feel that focalizing 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
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
n you got your source from" really qualifies
as "upstream", anyway; I suspect most people who really want upstream
distribution wouldn't be satisfied with it, since the point is usually
to allow integrating the code.
--
Glenn Maynard
kages ...", but it's very hard to do the same for a specific restriction,
which is probably what you're really 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
#x27;t a bright
line test, and yes, judgement is required.
I don't think these types of amendments are what David and Steve M have
in mind, though; 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
It sounds like what you want it things to happen to
draw people into the discussion before we find ourself at a consensus
(that's certainly better than doing so after, since that results in the
discussion rebooting).
--
Glenn Maynard
advertising clauses. (As well as the FSF's
reasons, I don't like avoidable GPL-incompatibility.) They're definitely
permitted by the DFSG, though.
--
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 t
e work of the library, though.
Anyway, I think we're agreed as far as it usually matters in practice.
--
Glenn Maynard
opinion and its rationale),
so there's no point in arguing this further.
--
Glenn Maynard
kage.
If the only possible use 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
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. DeCS
?
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
ot; in DFSG#1 disallows.
Another restriction I believe would be in this class is "you may only
distribute this program on Thursday". (I agree that calling either of these
a fee is a stretch.)
--
Glenn Maynard
thing that silly,
nor am I trying to stop discussion about it. I just feel he's overstating
the disagreement.
--
Glenn Maynard
ut I don't think the argument
is so clear cut.
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").
--
Glenn Maynard
ay, Nathanael Nerode, Henning Makholm, Raul
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
critical that I have permission to sell hardcopies of manuals;
the lack of Debian 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
ins portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library". The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."
--
Glenn Maynard
d party can't dictate how a copyright
> holder interprets any license to it's own code.
And I no disrespect for the authors of htdig, of course. It's just best to
be careful and explicit with issues like this.
For example, all (known) GPL projects in Debian which link against
more fundamental issue that was bothering me, and one
which we're agreed on.
--
Glenn Maynard
intless discussions that go on here. The
> rest of Debian actually gets on with productive work...
As does d-legal. (By your tone, you clearly have no interest in being
convinced otherwise, so I won't waste time debating this.)
--
Glenn Maynard
library. (I suppose identifier names could be argued, but that seems
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 t
disagreement and discussion doesn't indicate that;
> >discussion very often leads to agreement. (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 me
tually distribute GNU 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
to the DFSG are
likely to stand any chance before the release, after GR 2004-004).
--
Glenn Maynard
bably have the reverse
effect you intend.)
--
Glenn Maynard
e DFSG, let's hear it, so we can talk about it specifically.
--
Glenn Maynard
e, civil and rational,
and less derisive and condescending than Sven's 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
but
> that's a minor 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
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:11:22PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual unless
> terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted hereunder
> will
> terminate:
> (c) automatically without notice from Lice
for your costs of doing so.
I'd be pretty screwed if a couple thousand people made such a request.
--
Glenn Maynard
as a project, either can't or shouldn't
need to employ such judgement, and that the DFSG should be adjusted
to eliminate it; as I've said, I disagree.
--
Glenn Maynard
BIT C
RealNetworks' Trademark policy.
RealNetworks defines the following trademarks collectively as "Licensor
Trademarks": "RealNetworks", "RealPlayer", "RealJukebox", "RealSystem",
"RealAudio", "RealVideo", "RealOne Player", "RealMedia", "Helix" or any other
trademarks or trade names belonging to RealNetworks.
RealNetworks "Licensor Trademark Policy" forbids any use of Licensor Trademarks
except as permitted 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
onvincing arguments
on either side, so I've been stuck up here).
--
Glenn Maynard
ll "I
am He-man", smell a flower, run a marathon, flip off my boss, or any other
ridiculous, irrelevant and pointless things.
--
Glenn Maynard
de
the linked program; if it did, this wouldn't be an exception at all.)
--
Glenn Maynard
e source
for those are, since very few of us have any experience 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
ting that we immediately throw out every
image that we don't have source for, and nobody--I hope!--is even considering
filing bugs.
[1] rules lawyer (n): one who brings out dict(1) to argue an interpretation
of the DFSG. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
dable, we should allow 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
format is known, and
> 2. data is under a free license according to DFSG
>
> then such data is free according to DFSG.
ELF is a known data format, but it's very rarely source; a typical ELF
will not pass the DFSG without the real-world source code equivalent. I
hope we're all agreed on that, at least.
--
Glenn Maynard
when there are potentially significant
inter-project relations at stake--I felt that RMS requesting that Branden
withdraw from the GFDL debate (IIRC) was in the same category--but there
aren't.)
Of course, if you just don't want to put up with the abuse, that's fine; I've
mostly st
any post, but
> to attempt to coerce contributors into not participating in a
> discussion is highly contemptible.
... and requesting that his name not be spoken is laughable.
--
Glenn Maynard
that the DFSG should be changed from a set of
guidelines (which, 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 ever
ng indirect discrimination or not?
DFSG#10: grandfather clause or interpretation boundary?
... and many more that I'm not thinking of, I'm sure. I don't think
trying to "clarify" each of these by rewording the clause would help,
but I'd still be interested in hearing your suggestion (for DFSG#1;
not intending to pollute the thread with arguments about the above
examples, of course).
--
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
> > &
apply if aggregated with
other works, so DFSG#1 applies even if we accept your argument.
[1] Bundling with "hello world" to form 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
rce,
and QPL#6 is intended to apply to programs that link against QPL works.
It seems to say "if you distribute your own program that links against
my QPL'd library, you have to give me a copy of your program on demand".
It feels like I'm misreading the license, but I can't figure out how.
--
Glenn Maynard
601 - 700 of 1195 matches
Mail list logo
