urse,
recommend going to a 3 or even 2 clause variant of the license).
I believe I still have the email somewhere in my archives if necessary, but
to date it hasn't been terribly relevant.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
De
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:59:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:16:36PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
> GPL-incompatible]
>
> > As a point of note, RMS has said that this in
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:47:58PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:25PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > [on the 4-clause BSD license's compelled-advertising clause being
> > > GPL-incompatible]
> >
> > Really, there are so many g
ggregation - if the dividing point
is that multiple implementations, at least some of which are Free, can be
used with it?
Shades of libreadline
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:57:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:34:29PM +0000, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 01:05:27PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:03:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > >
hat we CAN have a logo that's safe to ship
in main. Whether the current one meets that, or should be changed to meet
it, or some other option fixes it, I think it's someth
and nerf-bat Mr. Grizzard until he agrees to a relicense
under suitable terms, and thus resolve the only outstanding issue I have
concrete evidence of (
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:41:52PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> [snip]
> > See above; the concern is not over any specific piece of code (in that the
> > only ones I can point to, I'm fairly sure the license c
it, separate license (which we can review on it's own merits), or it
isn't under a license at all, in which case we have no useful rights.
If you can think of an explicit fourth case, do bring it up, but I believe
those three constitute sets whose intersection is the null
t KLI.org, and still has a number of such things (he spares me any
recitations, however).
Okay, probably fewer people in the world - but quite possibly more
people likely to ever read Deb
's measured
ignorance that, in an ideal world, we could fix immediately, which takes
time and effort in the real world, and which we are (should be) in the
process of fixing. If someone hands us a specific point, we're no longer
ignorant of it, and should act upon it with all due d
o can, in fact, make useful and well-documented bug reports
about them. If the maintainer disagrees with the bug, it can be referred
to debian-legal, just like any other question of the sort. If he or she
disagrees with the debian-legal concensus, we
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
>
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:49:43AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* rem
ven by
the responses of certain maintainers on the GFDL issue, people who want
the advice of d-l (or, more often, want to use the opinions as a factor
in convincing someone else to take a given action), need a solid opinion
that appears to have the weight of
us, not just theoretical".
(And in good news, last week the NetBSD team commited most of the
outstanding patches for license updates app
[ Replying to both at once ]
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:54:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:07:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:16:09AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > I don't *like* it (to the point that I
FSF, of course, has a very broad opinion on, with which
many people disagree, but if you want to avoid having it decided in court,
play it safe.
(That sounds oddly like the arguments over software patents...)
--
Joel Baker
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:46:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > > If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
&g
.]
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:39:47PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On December 2nd, I was contacted by Luke Mewburn, on behalf of The NetBSD
> > Foundation, asking
[ If you're being impatient about resolving this, please see the bottom ]
[ of the email for an imporant bit of information... ]
[ snip ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Joel
ce with the topic tends to indicate that the
same folks who care are very likely to consider there mere *concept* of
a 'daemon' to be anathema, evil, fou
like that.
One should never name the Lady.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gt; > In any event, for any name that doesn't raise trademark issues (and
> > thus potentially jeopardize the entire project), I'd say
> > the choice remains up to those who are actually doing the
ybe Debian GNU/Pesetas, Debian GNU/Zloty, and Debian GNU/Yen?! All
> hail capitalism! This would be quite fitting right now, since most of
> the western world is celebrating capitalism's supremacy next week (of
> course, some celebrate it rel
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Of course, I don't really think we should merit religious nonsense with
> > the honour of giving name to the products of Debian labour any
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:09:07PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:19:10PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > Having cheated and grabbed an online resource for it from Google, the
> > following possibilities show up (my apologies for the lack of accent
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:40:11PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:01:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Branden's second proposal of using something from Pratchett did have a
> >>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:54:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Even so, I'm amenable to anyone who can come up with names which are less
> > loaded to random fu
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:10:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:15:04AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Actually, given that I'm a long-time and deep-seated Tolkien geek, I rather
> > like the notion of
ough of the right letters to do
the first-letter trick, at least once per.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''
ss problem description). If not, something like this could have *very*
far-reaching impacts; if one turned on checksumming (available for UDP
packets natively, or one could do it in the protocol) to avoid bitrot, this
opens up a huge path t
ngs that Provide: mail-transport-agent are in non-free.
Point 3: This looks like a good place for a virtual package. Then you could
simply write "Recommends: jikes-sablevm | jikes" (or whatever other def
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:10:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:02:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > > For example, a jikes has a Recommends as follows:
>
> > > Recommends: jikes-sablevm | jikes-gij | jikes-classpath | jikes-kaffe |
&
e
> since been relicensed "upstream".
Since CGD is a frequent contributor to NetBSD, and he's on my list of
people I still need to ask about relicensing to 3-clause stuff for the
NetBSD codebase, I could possibly raise the issue of the XFree86 license
te
ing to hunt down upstreams who haven't been seen in over a
decade, some of whom now are now CTOs with battalions of secretaries to
keep them from being bothered...)
--
Joel
g to go to some fairly large amount of
effort to try to convince upstreams to switch to a license without one...
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :&#x
tBSD core team handles on a case
by case basis, rather than a full audit).
D) Anything else...
--
***
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpzgPnXKl6XN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
> >libraries? This appears
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> >
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:26:28PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
> > under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
> > l
nder a section of the GPL
with unintended consequences, which will be rewritten in GPL version 3, and
which the FSF currently has a policy of not taking issue with, until the
GPL version 3 is available to clarify the situation.
--
***
(No, I'm not an adherent of the Church of the GPL; however, this is a
nicely concise summary of reasons not to use it, epecially the fact that
the folks who origionally wrote it have changed it to no longer have the
advertising clause.)
--
*
auses
and the problems they cause:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
(Note that UCB, who had the 'origional' advertising clause, has long since
abandoned that clause and relicensed all of their works, retroactively, to
no longer require it.)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp9kO1EnQQOz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
a), for the same reasons given by others on the thread.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp2is5DX8y9V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
review the contents periodically (rather
than just letting them atrophy) and ask "Is making this exception still
warranted?" - but just dropping it, as noble a goal as it might be, would,
I think, cost Debian more ground than it would gain.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpG69Cfm2dLV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:52:08AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> > a useful service.
>
> People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
People could also provide
stuff).
They *might* be willing to drop 'licensed', however, as that seems to be an
artifact from the standard boilerplate of "you have a license to use this"
non-Free stuff they produce. We can hope.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpk8VEqGjD3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream is very
> > likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to the lawsuits
>
helped them most.
Certainly using it *in addition to* Copyright is unlikely to be problematic
(one could always argue it was part of the rest of the text, which is
allowed to have "I like Baboons" or other such in it, if you really must),
and certainly I wouldn't want to trust that *only* (c) would be sufficient.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpwBFhr5t1Lz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
en
in patched binary form, so it should be fine for non-free (though, frankly,
I'm not sure it would be a worthwhile endeavor - and I currently run dozens
of games based on the code tree).
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,&#x
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:31:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote:
> > The TinyMUSH package is not DFSG-free,
>
> Agreed. There are some additional problems:
>
> > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright
> > *
> > * Users o
" and "statement of fact" could well be
blurry, but unless we want to reject a really, really massive number of
otherwise free licenses because we insist on having the right to be so rude
as to
gt;
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as
ents could be
viewed as making a statement of non-technical policy, and subject to GR
approval. Per item.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,'
ntriguing, given that
NetBSD was the concrete example given in one of the origional arguments.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; "non-free-gcc" source package though...
Certainly it would require splitting things out and juggling a bunch of
things to get things to get it all sorted out. Not impossible, but I don't
blame Matthias for wanting a clear ruling on it before going to that much
e
rbids you from putting any further restrictions on anyone who receives a
copy (the inherent purpose of DRM systems, presumably, being to limit how
far a copy can propagate, the antithesis of Free documentation).
Or am I missing something glaringly obvious here?
--
Joel Baker <
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:53:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 03:42:41PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:16:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > > No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DF
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 04:37:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:13:06PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > In light of the DMCA, I'd say it's exactly as pervasive, for a significant
> > portion of our users. Once it goes in, it never
hat matters, once that happens, is whether we can distribute it - the
difference pointed out above.
All other freedoms are irrelevant, if it doesn't meet the required
tc)).
The only context in which this would make sense where concerning the DFSG's
foundational freedoms (those involving software) appears to be "Does such
a country have equal rights to use the software". To which the answer is
"yes".
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED
62 matches
Mail list logo
