ause. (You can use
a GPL program in Windows, but Microsoft can't include a GPL program
with Windows.)
--
Glenn Maynard
hird time in two days that you've made this flame,
without giving any backing and ignoring evidence to the contrary, makes
you seem an anti-debian-legal zealot.
--
Glenn Maynard
by one of the regulars on this
> list.
As was pointed out, go read the archives on the GFDL issue. I don't trust
the FSF when they call something "free" anymore; they've lost their
credibility. I doubt I'm alone. Claiming that d-legal people don't use
their own judgement when evaluating statements from the FSF is completely
baseless.
--
Glenn Maynard
isn't comparable
to requiring it in advertising (banner ads).
I believe it's still GPL-incompatible. See "The Phorum License, Version
1.2" on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
--
Glenn Maynard
be using it: it's clearly against the
author's wishes, even if legal. (I don't buy this at all, though.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> (if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
> copyrighted in the US)
This doesn't help Debian; I think the "bitmap font copyright" thing
is an isolated strangeness of US law.
--
Glenn Maynard
but there's certainly a point
to writing free drivers for Windows.)
--
Glenn Maynard
ite a real
> Linux driver instead.
Someone might write a free driver for Windows, that this wrapper could run.
--
Glenn Maynard
of other versions, derivatives or license
key information is expressly prohibited without explicit written
approval signed by an authorized Linuxant officer.
7. Performance. Actual speeds vary and are often less than the maximum
possible.
--
Glenn Maynard
in the license serves to protect the JasPer
> Contributors (e.g., from lawsuits claiming contributory infringement or
> something similar).
Does such a thing as contributory infringement exist for patents? I've
only heard of that particular evil in relation to copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
license.
(Copylefts tend to have "no additional restrictions" clauses, so
they have a tendency to be incompatible with each other. It's another
reason I'm tending to like copylefts less these days: they lead to a lot
of license incompatibility, which results in code rewritin
e, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
"free" (eg. "similar in spirit") to my own software, so I'm not
comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting to avoid the GPL
for my own work.
--
Glenn Maynard
gardless. ("Don't use this
software to make bombs" is GPL-incompatible, even if you don't happen to
be using it to make bombs.)
Could you link to the thread you're referencing?
--
Glenn Maynard
nflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
(For what it's worth, I doubt most people using the GPL have thought all
that much about its consequences and effects, at least from my experience
of discussing those effects with people ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
d; this
is clearly the most problematic clause.
--
Glenn Maynard
nt grant (4b) seems to be the key part
of this strategy. Other than the mixing of patent and copyright, it
seems few people have issues with it.
I'm not sure if there's a separate "fight" behind the reciprocity clause
(#5). Is it there as another defense mechanism, or is it there to make
4b more palatable to patent holders?
--
Glenn Maynard
ight license to Apache,
and you don't lose patent licenses granted by other Contributors.
--
Glenn Maynard
ve a similar requirement for patents that affect the code.
I'm inclined to think of it as "if you contribute code, we want a license
to use it under *both* copyright and patent laws, not just copyright".
I'm undecided about reciprocity for something we don't require to begin
with (patent licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
Program (or any work
based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions."
--
Glenn Maynard
ndecided. I can sympathise both with attempts to find defenses
against patents (of which free software has scarce few), and to do so in
a way that doesn't force others to weaken their own patent defenses.
--
Glenn Maynard
cense."
What prevents me, after violating the license, from obtaining a new copy
of the software and using (copying, modifying, distributing) that instead?
I assume it doesn't work that way. I don't really know how it does work,
though.
--
Glenn Maynard
e itself.
It's easy to argue that the patent-related terms here do that (or might
with improved phrasing). It's difficult to say whether it outweighs
the restrictions, since the side-effects of the restrictions aren't
obvious to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
some condition" (not just "revokable
at whim", which is obviously non-free), wouldn't this include GPL #4?
I'm not suggesting that the GPL is non-free, or that the proposed
clause in question is free; just that this statement seems overly
broad.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> With the world the way it is, we as a Project have no *choice* but to
> sweat pesky licensing issues.
Complete agreement, of course.
--
Glenn Maynard
lts pesky licensing issues being found that
ultimately require the attention of people who would rather be hacking,
or keeps a pet snippet of non-free software out of Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
27;s (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software)", not "(Kaffe's GPL)
and GPL incompatible Java software".
--
Glenn Maynard
notice and license blurb is OK, but
requiring that I not modify the code that does so is not. This even
prevents me from fixing the output: "cdrecord -version" displays garbage
ISO-8859-1 on my UTF-8 terminal.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:15:26AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
> > GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
>
> s/downgrade/upgrade/
>
> ;-)
At least we're disagreeing ver
nk all licensing options with this type of clause ("derived
works must be licensed under the terms of this License") are incompatible
with each other. Another example: the LGPL would be incompatible with the
GPL, except that it has a separate option to downgrade to the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
ractices shouldn't be mandated by licenses.)
This license really has little to do with the BSD license, though. I think
claiming association with it is bordering on deceptive ...
--
Glenn Maynard
xpect a response, and understand that we're not giving
legal advice.
They may not be entirely on-topic, but they're closer than most of the
threads on d-devel are ...
--
Glenn Maynard
ng an LGPL fork, though.
Alternatively, if you're not yet set on a database, you could use postgresql;
it's BSD-licensed.
--
Glenn Maynard
had enough of "Gabucino". Re-plonk.)
--
Glenn Maynard
ecial code for the TeX logo, but they can't
> apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip.
The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
fall under the spirit of the "if you change it, don't call it foo"
allowances.
We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
--
Glenn Maynard
ample, if the Official Use Logo was placed under a permissive
copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark
law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would
still not be DFSG-free.
Using laws other than copyright to restrict freedom is not a loophole to
main.
--
Glenn Maynard
we're infringing or not;
liability is only decreased if you're unknowing, not eliminated.
I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
as enforced.
--
Glenn Maynard
;
in the archive.
"... but they don't enforce it against Linux users" is a bad idea, though.
Any form of enforcement indicates a hostile patent owner.
--
Glenn Maynard
anyone wants the original, unedited message, mail me
and I'll forward it in private.)
--
Glenn Maynard
t; There is an aaxine version of xine.
Okay, I can confirm that Debian's Xine has ASF installed.
> > and VirtualDub had ASF issues.
> We won't agree to remove ASF support. It would be a most serious crippling.
Which features will be disabled to permit safe distribution in Debian
t;Because of MPEG-2 licensing matter, we are not able to provide
unlimited MPEG-2 encoding function for free, thus, TMPGEnc (which you
can download from this website) has limited MPEG-2 encoding function
because it is free." I recall that being a patent issue, but can't find
anything more specific.
--
Glenn Maynard
-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues.
(These are all issues of patents that have been actively enforced, at
least in the past.)
--
Glenn Maynard
scuss having the trademark policy changed
is not the BTS, and you can attempt to take steps to change the situation
if you like. However, in the meantime the RC bug is still correct and
should be fixed, or (if you refuse to adhere to both the Social Contract
and the license on the Official Use logo), remain open.
--
Glenn Maynard
ow those restrictions
could be free. You seem to be disagreeing with Richard, saying that we
probably want the Official Logo to be restricted by both copyright and
trademark.
(I agree that the Official Logo is inherently non-free, and that the
Open Use Logo should be under a simple, permissive license.)
--
Glenn Maynard
mes is dificult to explain what software is.
That is, of course, completely irrelevant. Nobody's questioning that
a compiler is software. Do you have a point?
And why are you stating this as if we *havn't* been discussing the
topic at length for months?
--
Glenn Maynard
onder how a logo with a trademark-enforced restriction of
"unauthorized projects only" or similar would be DFSG-free? I'd suppose
it would fall under the "if you change this, change the name" allowances;
"if you change this product, change the logo". I'm not sure if that's
free, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
approved by the Project. Therefore, that logo can not be DFSG-free, and
therefore, it can not be in main.
--
Glenn Maynard
at the purpose of the
Official Use Logo.)
> Yes but thats the unofficial logo. I want to be able to use the
> official logo.
But you can't. (Even if you close bugs pointing out this fact to you.)
--
Glenn Maynard
freeness.
It might. A license may be non-free because it is too unclear to be
unambiguously interpreted as free. The unclarified Artistic license
should probably fall in this category (ignoring "grandfather clause"
interpretations of DFSG#10, which is really just an escape hatch to
avoid having to deal with problems in those licenses).
--
Glenn Maynard
ponding to the original survey.
--
Glenn Maynard
s one major reason I use Debian, and I'm far from
alone in this.
It's certainly tiresome to see the old "but *this* little bit of non-free
doesn't seem to be causing any problems, so it's okay!" arguments again.
--
Glenn Maynard
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
form for modification has been lost".
In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has
lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to
do next.
--
Glenn Maynard
has* any source code for this, it should be distributing it.
> Someone who cares about the driver should contact IBM about this.
Full agreement.
--
Glenn Maynard
>
> I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
> DFSG manuals are not free.
(Because they fail the GFDL, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
this isn't the case, as you said "no
source code is provided", not "no source code exists".)
A link to past discussions would be useful, to avoid repeating them.
--
Glenn Maynard
sex for its users"
>
> I think you're in a minority here.
:(
--
Glenn Maynard
freedom isn't important if it's not
about programs, and that we should give it up freely since it's not the
focus of the FSF, and going on and on with definitions that have zero
relevance to the spirit of the issue.
plonk
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Debian is about Free _Software_.
And this makes invariant sections free?
Stop trying to take away my freedom with word games.
--
Glenn Maynard
, he said "become free". The freedoms that are
important for software are also important for documentation. This
has been pointed out numerous times, and I've yet to see any interesting
arguments otherwise.
(Putting words in people's mouths is not an interesting debate tactic.
Stop wasting our time.)
--
Glenn Maynard
forbid linking it with code that has extra restrictions. You can
combine just about anything with 3-clause BSD-licensed software.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Don't look now, but Creative Commons publishes somewhere around half a dozen
> licenses :-) (Though some are pretty blatantly non-free)
(No ridiculously excessive license proliferation here, folks! Nope!)
--
Glenn Maynard
t)
> I can't promise I'll remember on every message.
What he's asking for is the list policy default. You know this. If you
won't fix your mailer, you'll continue to get complaints. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
lf, that you can't read "discriminate" that
broadly.
This is pointless; reply snipped.
--
Glenn Maynard
of free
software. We just can't read DFSG#6 that broadly.
--
Glenn Maynard
lationship
between a license forbidding use of code in the endeavor of writing
proprietary software, and a person choosing not to accept something
because of personal preference.
--
Glenn Maynard
xchange or give away using a License or Contract. Contract Law is
> what allows you to establish a legally binding document to exchange or
> give away those rights or interests.
http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html , at least, disagrees
with you.
--
Glenn Maynard
to
scope of copyright law, which is rarely done).
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
--
Glenn Maynard
its only verbetim copying, but you can make changes as
long as you remove the preamble, even though it just said you can do
neither. What?
Is it trying to say that you can remove the preamble as long as you also
make some kind of modification to the license text? That would be
strange (and pointless, I think; change some whitespace.)
--
Glenn Maynard
reamble and/or create derivative licenses of the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
ts in this mailing
list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project."
--
Glenn Maynard
, without
loading it. In my case, at least, that means I never load it.
It's only an annoyance, and is pointless.
--
Glenn Maynard
coerce me into using free software and
open formats, which is insane.)
--
Glenn Maynard
nal author's preferred form for modifications",
and that's not an error.
[1] ignoring the practical difficulties of converting programs between
languages
--
Glenn Maynard
t; have a significant effect on either.
Yes, it would: sticking solidly to our principles benefits users. Putting
non-free items in Debian chips away at our principles and paves the way for
more concessions to non-freeness.
Don't let the Social Contract and the DFSG go the way of the US Constitution.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:31:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, the package containing it, which means creating a "perl-doc-non-free"
> package.
But wait--we can't even do that, due to the very licensing we're discussing.
Even worse.
--
Glenn Maynard
t change that.
(I find your "reading" to have so little to do with DFSG#1 that I'm having
difficulty figuring out where to start, so I'll leave that to others.)
--
Glenn Maynard
withdrew his statement, this is
a pointless debate, unless you're also making that claim. (It's pretty
pointless anyway; the number of people who believe something but are
unwilling or unable to defend that position is not very interesting.)
--
Glenn Maynard
d and it don't makes me considering the
> GFDL non-free.
vir·tu·al·ly adv.
1. In fact or to all purposes; practically.
2. Almost but not quite; nearly.
--
Glenn Maynard
, either.
Likewise, if a document's license requires that it be packaged with a
non-free manifesto, the document isn't free, either.
There would be fewer problems if invariant sections were only immutable,
not unremovable.
--
Glenn Maynard
want CC's on list followups, you need to set
the Mail-Followups-To header.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:14:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> anyway, I'll wait until Debian's position on the GFDL is documented
> somewhere and then address all these together.
How is that relevant?
--
Glenn Maynard
> this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
Was there such a statement, and are we sure it meant exactly this and
wasn't being interpreted? (I seem to recall reading an interpretation
of a statement that I didn't buy, but it was too long ago for me to
remember clearly.)
--
Glenn Maynard
>it, howsoever arising and disclaim all liability for any losses or damage
> >which may be sustained by any person as a result thereof.
Snarl, hiss.
--
Glenn Maynard
o is asking for this? It's not a reasonable request; in fact, it's
one that's likely to expose you to greater liability.
--
Glenn Maynard
the Emacs manual, doesn't
belong in main, regardless of whether it's software or something else.
(The fact that it's the FSF promoting this non-freeness is disturbing
but irrelevant.)
--
Glenn Maynard
his is to remove my right to do it at all?
That's ludicrous. Rights are not preserved by revoking other rights.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 10:45:44PM +0200, Patrick Mauritz wrote:
> after someone mentioned that change about 1 year late on slashdot,
The slashdot post was (as one would expect from a slashdot post) bogus;
nothing changed. This was discussed here at the time; search the list
archives.
--
Gl
xt he gave may pass DFSG5/6, but be non-free for other
reasons. I don't know if there was any consensus reached from the above
post.
--
Glenn Maynard
that says "modify and distribute all you want; keep my name; don't
add additional restrictions to the license" implicitly requires that you allow
your modifications to be used proprietarily, since it prevents you from adding
the GPL's safeguards against it. I'd find that license to
makes it different from the
above?
[1] Not entirely: not being able to readd the source distribution requirement
is itself a restriction, so it'd be GPL-incompatible.
--
Glenn Maynard
applied to software distribution, but I'm not
sure if it's a problem here (other than the general issue of forcing me to
put things on the--now very crowded--covers that I don't want to).
--
Glenn Maynard
bt they have any.
> A. First of all, only the preamble of the GPL is so marked; the FSF has
I believe the whole license was so marked, but was relaxed by a license
clarification of the FSF.
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing
icenses should
be, but there's no consensus yet on things like manifestos.)
--
Glenn Maynard
p).
Knoppix has (presumably) not received written offers in accord with 3B for
every piece of GPL software they distribute, so 3C is irrelevant. Pointing
to the place you downloaded the software is not enough to satisfy the GPL.
--
Glenn Maynard
then continue leaving it there)
--
Glenn Maynard
gt; first two paragraphs), without the FSF's permission, would be.
I can change most of that text all I want, and as long as I don't claim the
resulting text is the FSF's beliefs, I'm not misrepresenting anything.
The only thing stopping me from doing that is the FSF's copyright.
--
Glenn Maynard
nsus that
invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed,
though.
--
Glenn Maynard
document is free. You can reference *any* document in this way. It's
certainly not similar to software patches. (And I believe many people on
this list consider the "patches" exception to have been an error.)
There's nothing free about being forced to do this.
--
Glenn Maynard
ouldn't I be able to reuse parts of other
RFCs?
The only possible problem is if someone releases a modified RFC and doesn't
mark it appropriately, but that's easily solved (require a name change).
I've yet to see a good argument why RFCs shouldn't be free.
--
Glenn Maynard
dy do this. I don't think Debian should be expending
time categorizing non-free into "non-free and really non-free"; let people
who would actually use the distinction (distributors) spend the time.
(It'd be a fair bit of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free
licenses.)
--
Glenn Maynard
ht check
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.html
for some more thorough language that I believe there were no objections to.
--
Glenn Maynard
901 - 1000 of 1195 matches
Mail list logo
