On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:53PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It seems like AMD should really be distributing these header files
> > with a maximum permissive license like MIT/Expat or similar.
> > Perhaps someone should contact them and try to get it
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:53PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> > Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > > Where is this proprietary library distributed?
>> >
>> > In AMD website.
>> >
>> > If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:53PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > Where is this proprietary library distributed?
> >
> > In AMD website.
> >
> > If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be
> >
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> > acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
> > thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
>
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
> >The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
> >discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
I feel it's some combination of DFSG 5 (discriminating on location)
and DFSG 1 (non-monetary cost of use),
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...]
>
> Noted... though, my mail client handles such things.
You appear to be using KMail. You should use the “reply to list”
feature, which
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg writes:
>>
>> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
>> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
>> > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you every
On Monday 04 January 2010 11:33:15 am Walter Landry wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> >> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
> >> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
> >>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 03:07:23PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
> it is getting us away from the original thread topic.
> How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
> both acceptable and
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:16:43 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
> > lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
> > and to reply to...]
>
> T
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
>> [While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap value? Long
>> lines in your e-mail messages are unpractical to read on web archives
>> and to reply to...]
>
> The archive looks fine [1],
The official a
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
>>both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
>>cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
>
> As explained, t
Nicolas Alvarez writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
>> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
>> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
>
> This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get con
nicolas.alva...@gmail.com wrote:
>How about we try this? Let's assume for a moment that choice-of-venue is
>both acceptable and allowed by the DFSG. Then look at the *rest* of the
>cal.h license terms instead of continuing the argument about this one.
As explained, the license does not really ma
mdpo...@troilus.org wrote:
>The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG #5 by
>discriminating against people who live outside the venue. Is there some
The usual argument of the DFSG revisionists is that everything is a
restriction or a discrimination, so it's not really helpful.
--
MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
> thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
This choice-of-venue discussion looks like it won't get consensus soon, and
it is getting u
On Monday 04 January 2010 09:15:20 am Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
>
> > You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
> > are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
> > DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
On Sunday 03 January 2010 09:52:04 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > [dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they
> > care about this...]
>
> [Yes, I agree.]
> [Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to d
Sean Kellogg writes:
> You can object all you want. I'm not say that choice-of-venue clauses
> are somehow "great"... just saying that aren't prohibited by the
> DFSG. The DFSG does not give you everything you want, only what you
> need :)
The usual argument is that choice of venue violates DFSG
On Monday 04 January 2010 06:36:26 am Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony W. Youngman writes:
>
> > In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
> > writes
> >>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
> >>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considerin
On Monday 04 January 2010 04:31:53 am MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such.
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
> In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
> writes
>>I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
>>acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
>>thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
In message <20100104123153.65a79f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
writes
I'm not convinced that there is consensus on choice-of-venue being
acceptable. I suspect there's a mix of considering it acceptable,
thinking we can fight it when needed and ignorance.
Actually, I believe choice-of-venue
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Moreover, in the present case, I think that I honestly stated that the
> > DFSG-freeness of choice of venue clauses is controversial and then I
> > provided my own personal opinion, *explicitly* labeling it as such. [...]
>
> The problem with this line of argument is that i
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:45:19 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:15:19 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:58 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[...]
> > Neutrality? We are not on Wikipedia, here!
> > I clearly stated that I was going to express my own personal opi
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:28:32 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> [dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they care
> about this...]
[Yes, I agree.]
[Please also avoid Cc:ing me, since I am subscribed to debian-legal...]
[While you are at it, could you please set a sane wrap val
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:45:19PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> While looking up the specific clauses for disclaimer and liability, I
> noticed section 12 of GPLv3. Curious as to how that clause is not
> essentially the same as the non-export clause? As a resident of the United
> States, I am boun
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:15AM +0100, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> By that reasoning, if your cause is indeed just, and worthy, then I
> don't see why the same view doesn't apply to possible copyright suits.
Because I'm arguing from the position that modern copyright regime is, as a
whole, just, and
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Where is this proprietary library distributed?
>
> In AMD website.
>
> If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be
> able to detect your ATI cards. In order to use the proprietary library, it
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Where is this proprietary library distributed?
In AMD website.
If the user downloads it and installs it, BOINC will use it, and will be
able to detect your ATI cards. In order to use the proprietary library, it
uses the function declarations in the cal.h header distribut
On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, it's not different at all - and a license that says "you aren't allowed
> to do anything illegal with this software" is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil
> disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of
> software in Debi
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:01:01 -0300 Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
[...]
> Note that cal.h is a header file containing only function declarations and
> no actual code (although I guess what counts as 'actual code' is debatable).
> The matching function definitions are in a proprietary library that the
>
On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:15:19 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:58 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > >
> > > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advance
[dropping pkg-boinc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org as I don't think they care
about this...]
On Saturday 02 January 2010 10:38:52 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:11:09 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > On Friday 0
Fernando C. Estrada wrote:
> The BOINC source code were debianized to packages that meet the DFSG,
> and the Copyright include only compatible licenses (discarding all the
> files that don't comply with the DFSG from the Debian packages). Now,
> the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:31:13 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
[...]
> You are quite right... I failed to notice Francesco was talking
> just about /modification/. That certainly is a problem and clearly
> runs afoul of DFSG #3. My apologies.
Apologies accepted, but please try and avoid jumping up so fast
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:58 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > /*
> > >
> > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.
> > >
> > > Redistribution an
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:11:09 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > > This is a choice of venue clause.
> > > Choice of venue clauses are controversial and have been discuss
On Friday 01 January 2010 5:11:09 pm Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > >
> > > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advan
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > /*
> > >
> > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.
> > >
> > > Redistribu
On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> > /*
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following
> > conditi
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:46:27 -0600 Fernando C. Estrada wrote:
> Hi
Hi! :)
[...]
> Now,
> the doubt is in the lib/cal.h file, because includes the "license"
> pasted at the end of this message.
I personally see various problems with this file.
Assuming that the license you quoted constitutes th
Hi
In the #debian-devel channel, Nicolás Álvarez ask about this BOINC's
license issue, and in the pkg-boinc-devel team want to know your
opinion:
The BOINC source code were debianized to packages that meet the DFSG,
and the Copyright include only compatible licenses (discarding all the
files that
43 matches
Mail list logo
