> > I certainly don't see the GPL talking about the issue of shipping some
> > bits of a program on one day through distributor A and other bits of the
> > program on another day through distributor B.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:58:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If distributor A is distributi
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL
> explicitly allows this form of distribution*.
I was talking about the relationship of copyright law to some distribution
mechanics.
The GPL allows distribution under
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
> GPL-incompatible system libraries?
It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying who is doing
the linking and who provided those libraries. The
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase "accompanies the
> executable" would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
> contrary to the intent of this part of the license.
Under copyright law, the precise details of
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
> take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
> OpenSSL doesn't accompany it.
In the U.S., at least, "linking it against OpenSSL" pr
> On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the
> > terms of the GPL.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived work of the GPL program (it
> can't be, b
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> Has anyone at Debian sought permission from the Mozilla Organization to use
> the Mozilla trademarks in its packages? In your legal opinions, would it
> make a substantive difference?
To my knowledge, no one associated with the Moz
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL
> > binaries *linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> It's more complicated than that when dynamic linking
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> They did. Solaris 9 reportedly comes with GNU tools (I can't check it
> myself because I don't have a machine running Solaris).
You can get gnu tools for solaris from http://www.sunfreeware.com
To my knowledge, gnu tools are not supp
> >> Do you have a better word, taking brevity and clarity into account?
> >
> > Requirement.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's a much broader word. For example, a license which says I may
> only make modifications in French has a requirement, but that
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because "fee" is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
> service. It really doesn't mean "money only," in any context where
> precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
> a license, then th
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 01:11:42PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Taken altogether, it looks like this package is not distributable by
> anybody with parts under the JS-GPL.
I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
I don't know how far back we'd have to go to f
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:28:09PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The previous pine license was clearly and unambiguously free. UW, the
> copyright holder, devised an interpretation which was non-free.
> Debian deferred to the copyright holder's interpretation in that case.
That doesn't rea
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
> didn't have a license to distribute modified versions. So it got
> pulled from main.
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:40:40AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> In this case, what matters is that nobody be able to say "Debian took
> this guy's software and did something he didn't want done with it."
Given the nonsense that's been posted in his name, there's some serious
doubt that we
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
Is there any chance that someone has hacked his account?
Alternatively, is there any chance that he's writing in german and
relying on a program to translate what he says?
Or, maybe, that
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
> you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
> in the meantime it should just be moved to non-free.
Distributing a forked copy
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:41:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Response from David Turner, forwarded with permission. As noted, please
> keep the ticket number ("gnu.org #209128") in the subject line if you CC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with responses. I havn't added them to the CC of this
> forward,
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
> > to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
> > [a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b
> > > There are ten instances of the word "version" in that section. Only
> > > one can possibly be read as "version of the Program." That is the one
> > > inside the double quotes; but actual practice does not support that
> > > reading.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "actual practice". Do
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:26:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to
> imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how
> "portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a
> reference to a GPL'd p
>
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
> >applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
> >following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
> >later version published by the F
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:37:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > I omit your "expansions" of this because I think they are somewhere
> > > between exercises in silliness and exercises in perversity.
> Raul Miller writes:
> > In other words:
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> >to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
> >terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
> >published by the Free S
> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
> > example?
> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
> > appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequa
> >If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
> >to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
> >terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
> >published by the Free Software Foundation.
On Fri, Aug 27, 200
> > What happens to the notices which claim:
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> > any later ve
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas
> > However, this doesn't mean that a copyright holder who distributes the GPL
> > (version 2) with a prohibition on people distributing any other version
> > has granted other people the right to distribute at all.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Whoah. So
> > How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
> notices. For example, if I made changes to gcc, I might distribute
> the result
> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:00:00AM -04
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:46:56PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It seems there are two rough interpretations: that "v2 or later" is dual-
> licensing (or "dual, triple, etc-licensing"), and GPL#9 merely explains
> that, affirms it and recommends it; or that GPL#9 makes an explicit
> licensing requ
> > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
> > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
> > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
> >
> > And, that's what you have called "compulsions of asymmetric privileges".
On
> > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
> > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:10:46PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Are you sa
> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
> > later versions.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
> "or any later version," or if no version number was specifi
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:40:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
> to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
> claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
> compulsions are wh
> Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
> > You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
> > "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
> > written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit examp
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>
> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
Not if "GPL 2" indicates that GPL v2 applies and
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two
> options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form "This
> code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2."
I agree.
> Do you believe
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:10:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Two programs' licenses are incompatible if you can't combine them and
> distribute the result. If Raul's interpretation of the GPL is correct
> (the second alternative above), then a "GPL v2" program would be incompatible
> with a "G
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >>This excerpt is quite clear:
> >>
> >>A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
> >>If the Program just says "GPL&q
> >> so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the
> >> exclusion of others.
> > False. Section 6 says:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:43:49PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Er, section 6 isn't the copyleft in the GPL. It's the "public
> license" part. It only grants rig
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > version of it?
> Raul Miller writes:
> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:3
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> version of it?
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
--
Raul
> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Section 9 of the GPLv2 is qu
> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> What do you mean that
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:31:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a
> program which is GPL v2 and later.
That's not a problem, because GPL v2 alone includes (via either option
in section 9) later versions.
"GPL v2 alone" exclu
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> GPL 9 is there so that I *can*
> release mine under "GPL v2 or later" and he can then integrate it into
> his, because there's explicit definition of what this means and how it
> works with the rest of the GPL.
That's one of t
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This excerpt is quite clear:
>
> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>
> If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's nothing in S9 th
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 01:32]:
> > You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
> > Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Which is GPL v
> > But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
> > themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
> > like you did.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No, it doesn't. GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the pro
at version or of any later version published
> >by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify
> >a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
> > published by the Free Software Foundation.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
&
> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
> > terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
> > just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
> > o
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Section 9.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I don'
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Section 9.
> I don't see anything like that.
> All I see is a common license from authors that software is available
> under the GNU GPL, version 2 or any later version, at the discreti
> > What do you find non-free in this ?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not grant
> me. If that were symmetric, I would not object to this under DFSG 3.
Same condition exists with the GPL. [The
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can release software under multiple licenses if you're the copyright
> > holder. If you're not a copyright holder you can still release something
> > derived from it under the terms of the gpl if the other co
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 03:00:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It requires that derived works be released under the same license. The
> GPL requires that derived works be released under the GPL. You can't do
> both of these at the same time.
I think I disagree.
You can release software under
> > 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.
&g
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:33:13AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
> from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3]
>
> As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because
> some people w
>>> So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any
>>> other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the
>>> creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by
>>> copyright[1]. This is old news.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
> > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
> > presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thoma
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That "as long as" is important. It can be engaged in two ways. If I
> say "GPL except for to Bob, who gets Nothing! Nothing!" then that's
> not Free, because Bob doesn't have a Free license. If I say "BSD to
> teachers, GPL
> > I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
> > the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:51:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
> copyright of a program
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's also clear to me, from reading the bit of 17 USC 101 you quoted,
> > that running postfix constitutes a performance, even if it's not a
> > public performance.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:25:54PM -0400, Brian
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 tends to cause rewriting to be done earlier than otherwise.
Copyright l
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably
> > suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as
> > public performance -- unless you believe that executing a program does
> > not count as a "performance"
[Yeah, this is a stale thread -- I'm catching up, but it will
probably be days before I'm completely caught up. But no
one seems to have addressed this point.]
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:22:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on
> p
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:40:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Security isn't just a binary quality.
[Can't sleep, trying to find something boring enough to fix that.
Didn't quite work...]
Security is not always the same thing from one person to the next.
Ok, sure, some things are fairl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG.
> >The "G" in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines".
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among
> all
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
> -- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
> years of data but a really, really big dongle?
A dongle is a piece of hardware designe
> > Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in
> > Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:27:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion
> and I do not believe it to be the consen
> > Is there a way software can be made free in that sort of situation
> > which is acceptable to people who like to discuss the DFSG? If not,
> > is there some reason we should think that's a good thing for the free
> > software community?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:07:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wr
It seems to me that the QPL is trying to address cases where someone
might try to use otherwise independent contractual agreements to prevent
the distribution of QPL licensed code.
And, it seems to me, that some peopl see a conflict between the way the
QPL has expressed this and their interpretati
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
> to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current
> interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are
> copyright-controlled in co
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:37:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Point one: The Debian Social Contract says "Our priorities are our
> users and free software" -- no mention of authors, and there is an
> abundance of free software authors.
Actually, if you read the text, you'll see that "the free s
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is done
> at installation time, and the linking at emacs run time. Furthermore, since i
> remove them from binary packages, even the above is not done.
Assuming thi
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
> > in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
> > said it.
>
> All right. Which licenses to we accept as DFSG-free even though the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> "General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
> ("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
> lawyer-bait.
The important issue with trademarks is whether or not the word or phrase
has
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
> >would say "Get that program out!")
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You'd be going against Debian policy, then.
In what sense? We've d
> On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
> > where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
> > and the other does not, and both have choice of
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
> choice of *law* clause looks like this:
> "This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California."
>
> A choice of venue clause does somethin
Here's a recap of one point in subthread:
Branden:
> > > > > > > > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my
> > > > > > > > opinion. "The license may not require a royalty
> > > > > > > > or other fee for such sale." It does not seem
> > > > > > > > reasonable to me to assume that the li
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
> any time a
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> > the change author can receive any requests.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Which
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
>
> I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
> usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
> could be left out, and kept
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> s/^A /A free /
>
> Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there
> > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
> > point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Dictator Test:
>
> A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
> acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
> applicable laws.
>
> License grantors do not have a priva
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
> grounded in the DFSG, and see
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
> > that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I disagree. I think an MP3 player sho
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> > the change author can receive any requests.
>From the DFSG FAQ:
> < This holds even if such requirements are only "upon request", as the
> < castaway might be
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
> public to be provided to the original developer on request. This
> requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see
> sections 9a, 9b, a
> > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
> > on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
> can make them?
Because potential complexity of the boundaries
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:57:13AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> That is a fallacy. The word-processor is capable of producing content,
> hence it is not useless without pre-existing content to work with. An
> emulator has no such luxury.
This depends on the emulator.
An emulator designed for
> > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications
> > have value".
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection.
I do.
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on tha
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:40:08AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > a) Go try and 'reword' a book and try to pass it off as your own.
In a sense, this is what the GNU project is all about.
"Stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from many sources
is research."
Copyright is not
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:42:22PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> running ucon64 over said directories). Are they still covered by copyright
> law in that case?
>
> Thoughts?
Debian itself doesn't include copyright licenses in all its
directory listings and package lists -- including those with
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
...
> This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. "The license
> may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." It does not seem
> reasonable to me t
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided you
> wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have distributed
> copies of the software without wearing yellow underpants, can I
> enforce the contra
601 - 700 of 1451 matches
Mail list logo
