Hi folks,
I would like to release a library under the LGPL v3. However, this
library is written in Haskell, which does not currently have dynamic
linking facilities. I do not wish to require distribution of source
code to applications that use the library. In this sense, it puts me
in the same
Thomas Stegbauer wrote:
hello everybody,
a happy new year to all.
as i figured currently out, bacula on debian is unable to encryption
the data.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00144.html
what can be done this get solved within debian 5.0 lenny?
Please see
Convention, which
are frankly beyond my level of expertise. Any opinions here?
-- John
---BeginMessage---
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu April 10 2008 7:45:33 am Simon Josefsson wrote:
Severity: serious
Package: pygopherd
Version: 2.0.17-0.1
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: nonfree
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 06:34:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Having already put my foot in this mess, I will try that out with the
goal of producing patches this weekend, unless Kern, John or someone
else prefers to investigate for themselves. I may miss some run-time
cases (I don't
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
In the mean time, I sincerely hope that Debian finds some way to continue
releasing Bacula.
It sounds like Debian will simply have to disable the SSL support in
Bacula, yes? (this is a question to -legal)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:57:22PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
However, I have now removed *all* modifications, so that the current Bacula
code as of a few hours ago has no modifications to GPL v2. I am attaching a
copy of the current LICENSE file as it is at this moment in the SVN
I'm not
in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE
agrees.
Thanks,
-- John
- Forwarded message from Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:05:37 +0200
To: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bacula license
Hello John,
I
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE
agrees.
I just read the contents
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
ECC.
And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
Michael Poole gave a good answer.
He didn't address the FSFE -- where are they taking a different
Back in summer 2006, there was a thread regarding the inclusion of Sun's
Java under the DLJ in Debian's non-free area on its FTP site.
Questions about the license were raised at that time. In my
then-capacity as president of SPI, I asked SPI's attorney to give advice
on the questions. For
Hi,
The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
+ advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
current policy on that sort of license is. Plus, it's got some other
wording -- is it OK? Do any of you have any tips on what I might say
to the
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
it is very important for this
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
announcement:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION
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:
Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
another notch by making remarks like
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
relationship between SPI's
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages
to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in
responses from Sun, cf:
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 to withdraw from their relationship with Debian, then that's
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:11:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT (JDK - THE SOFTWARE
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
be posted to debian-legal.
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
indemnify Sun in certain circumstances should not have happened without
consulting with the board of SPI and SPI's attorney. **Regardless** of
the particular opinion on whether or not this is a legal risk, this
consultation should
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:30:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
- End forwarded message -
--
John Goerzen
Author, Foundations of Python
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
*trademark*
unfairly and without permission.
If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license
-- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that
intellectual property right does
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the
following?
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
Termination for IP or Patent Action.
- I change the manual license to be GPL
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license.
Thanks for mentioning this, Nathanael. I had read the license, but had
assumed (incorrectly, I guess) that Jose had already evaluated it here
before
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9).
I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
problem, but only for users of Bacula.
Who
(given our
recent GR on the subject?)
Please CC Kern on replies since he's not on debian-legal.
Thanks,
-- John
- Forwarded message from Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:41:36 +0200 (CEST)
To: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED
Is this free? (I'm thinking not...)
This manual may be included without modification in a
packaged release for use with Bacula, or it may be copied
for your own or company use, and it may be cited in small
parts for presentation purposes. It may not be published
for sale in any form,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply doesn't apply.
Do we? I thought that a license was a contract.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply
Hi,
I recently came across ths Artistic 2 (2.0beta5) license at:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/LICENSE/Artistic-2
I couldn't find any previous reference to a DFSG discussion about it.
Would it be considered DFSG-free?
Thanks,
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
As I recall, there was language about official builds of Firefox.
So it wouldn't seem to be binding on us.
-- John
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:51:04AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
I don't know what to make of this statement:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
[quote]
The
Hi,
There is some nice code here:
http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
licenses and refused to create one. But:
pesco It's mine, but if you manage to get your hands on it, keep it
for Christ's sake!
...
Heffalump the key
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Hello.
Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:42:35AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:27:08PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:12:15AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:54:06AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
I agree. I just thought that
Hello Otto,
Let me try to summarize your situation to make sure I understand:
1. You have a piece of software that you wish to be Open Source.
2. That software uses icons and images, which are interchangable
as a theme.
3. You wish to allow companies to distribute their own icons and
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:40:01AM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly
like the following:
The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained
verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is requiring.
As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use Apache.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue and work out a quick
settlement -- even if
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That way there would be no need to regard this delegate as a junior
partner to Mako, and we'd have a representative who had gone through
the stages of the NM process, pledged to uphold the Social Contract, and
who is formally
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:01:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the level playing field idea.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:16:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is certainly a significant group within Debian that would ilke
to see non-free get axed. We'll find out how large soon enough; I
would be surprised if the question has not been resolved by the end of
the year.
As someone
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
Moreover, there is evidence that the FSF will investigate and
Hello,
I have some documentation and documentation-like material that I am getting
ready to release, and figured this would be an opportune time to ask this
question:
What license do people here recommend for doing so?
I like some of the aims of the FDL (*NOT* the invariant sections), such as
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
What license do people here recommend for doing so?
I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
than BSD in that respect
Hello,
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
What do you think: DFSG free?
- non-binding summary
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
* Open Publication License; debian-legal archives show
that it may have been considered free at one time but now is
questionable. Can anyone shed some
If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of
debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following grin:
DFSG 1: Free Redistribution
Section 3c gives the right to use it in a collective work.
DFSG 2: Source Code
Not specifically addressed here (at least in terms of
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:06:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:08:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
If the point is obvious, my apologies, but: If sufficiently motivated
people are annoyed by the ongoing conversion of GNU documentation to GFDL,
they may at any time
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has
been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a
decision on the matter yet. It'll hopefully happen in the next few
months; it was stalled behind
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:28:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I think you'll find most of the people who want to remove non-free
would not have a serious problem with removing the GFDLed
documentation.
As far as I'm concerned, if something is not free enough for main, it is not
part of
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Non-free is up in the air for purely administrative issues, and has
been for a few years; we simply haven't got around to making a
decision on the matter yet. It'll
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:54:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
That doesn't seem to me to be any more non-free than the GPL requiring
people that distribute binaries also distribute soures.
It fails the dissident test. The dissidents would not be able to
exchange copies of the covered
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:30:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:14:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
This is far from the only objection that this list has come up with
with respect to the GNU FDL, though it was almost the only one we were
publicly discussing about 2
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards.
I think that if we find ways to fix
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:29:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that
the GFDL specifically states that they contain nothing that could fall
directly
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:41:55PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That's an interesting compromise you propose, and it would solve the
problems which affect only some GFDL documents. but I don't think it
I'm well aware of that.
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:27:53PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't
That doesn't seem to me to be
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying
the DFSG
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:27:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is the part of a
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
software benefit our users?
Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and software means
0s and 1s -- so nearly
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
If one
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
terminology is intended to be strictly denotative and carefully
defined, contracts and similar
*. But that's
the rub, isn't it? We're only required to distribute those invariant
sections if we distribute the manual. So we're back to removing the GPL by
the same argument that removes FDL documents.
--
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
to distribute copyright notices and licenses, but as a pragmatic
concession to copyright
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:56:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
to distribute copyright
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And while you may debate the enforcability of this in the US, it may be
enforcable elsewhere, and our preference has always been to assume licenses
are enforcable as written.
Indeed. And elsewhere, the FSF grants a license
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 03:06:11AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My comments are not limited to the FDL debate, but seek to address a more
fundamental question: Do software guidelines serve us well for non-software
items? My answer
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
computer to read a printed documentation.
Is
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:10PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I'd like to know more about this intellectual honesty that compels
the word software to include documentation when used in the Social
Contract, but not when used a little further down the page[0] in the
guidelines.
I don't
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:12:20PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Nowhere did I suggest that Debian must or even should distribute
documentation! Indeed it would seem Debian in violation of the 100%
criteria if software is interpreted in the normal manner.
My point here is that redefining
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people
involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In
the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the
project without RMS - but
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
(a) [...] Commercial speech that is not false or deceptive and does not
concern unlawful activities may be restricted only in the service of a
substantial governmental interest, and only through means that directly
advance that
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being The
GNU Manifesto, Distribution and GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE'', and
for gdb ``with the Invariant Sections being A Sample GDB Session and
Free Software'' and ``with
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 10:30:31AM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:45:59 +, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know what the consensus on MPL 1.0 is? I'd like to package
up pilot-mailsync, and it's licensed under that version.
mozilla-browser, libnss3
Hi,
Does anyone know what the consensus on MPL 1.0 is? I'd like to package up
pilot-mailsync, and it's licensed under that version.
Additionally, is it permissible to link that software with software under
the no-advert-clause BSD license?
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed
it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL.
As you well know, the role of spokesman for Debian was arrogated by
Joseph Carter, who failed to,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective
way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our deprecation of such
licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating
the spirit of
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:59:18PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I completely agree with that :-)
Recent comments on this list make it clear that 2a and 2c are intended to
apply to modifications you make regardless of whether you distribute. I'd
Well, I
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I do not think this is going to happen, especially given AGPL's (2)(d).
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail to
see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive
rights of copyright holders. Please
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're not serious are you? Include sanitize for undesirable comments,
re-architect to avoid an insecure hack, setup, house, and buy bandwidth
for http and mail servers for all these
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:50:54PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
What exactly am I ignoring here? Nothing here seems to require that
I distribute modified copies.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:14:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
There's a similar case in the LGPL (finding it is left as an exercise
for the reader). In practical terms, I think the FSF pretends these
glitches don't exist, and that these aren't violations. And tries to
fix them for the next
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:36:08PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the
source to a modified program AND that program is intractive.
No! (2
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes.
Of course, the issue is not money. The idea is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:35:19PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Similarly, I would argue that, if you derive benefit from using the
PHP-Nuke engine to assemble your homepage into its final form for
presentation, it is not *wholly* original.[1] Even if it is no longer a
derivative work of the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless distribution has occured.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:00:23PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Your stretch relies upon a single act being both an act of distributing the
*modified* program and of invoking it interactively.
I see no reason this can't be true of some programs. However, I do not
*rely* on this (see below).
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:31:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I think it boils down to this. When I run a KDE app, I think it's
reasonable to ensure that the About box maintains a reference to the
original author
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what the Affero bit is?
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Now THERE'S a title I'd like to have :-)
-- John
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
object code as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
an example of object code
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:47PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Well I should say, this case is independant of the GPL due to the
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
