Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> some cases already.
Let me make this simple. I retract this general sta
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:04:22 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
[...]
> > I think that the "dissident test" and others are indirectly mentionned to
> > everyone who wants to join Debian:
> >
> >
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down
> many licenses as DFSG violation.
> * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable
> (GPL2.0 does. Many licens
,
that discriminates against dissidents in totalitarian regimes (DFSG#5).
So, I disagree with you: in my own personal opinion, the dissident test
is a useful means to spot non-free restrictions and should not be
abandoned.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
Ne
057.html and
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00282.html
> But that is not the only outcome of the famous but ill guided "dissident
> test". That is why we need to use DFSG itself and stop using "dissident
> test". This has been discussed many times.
* Osamu Aoki [120924 16:43]:
> I see your position.
>
> But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down
> many licenses as DFSG violation.
I think it would help if you actually use that test and argue about that
case. I.e. what effect does som
; > > packages.
> > >
> > > You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the
> > > DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the
> > > letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure
> &
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
...
> > Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> > proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to b
* Osamu Aoki [120924 16:10]:
> > > Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003
> > > using this "dissident tests" to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced
> > > packages.
> >
> > You do not need the dissident test for that
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:32:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Osamu Aoki [120924 15:25]:
> > Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> > proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> > some cases already.
this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
> > >
> > > Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test".
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > I think that the "dissident test" and others are indirectly mentio
* Osamu Aoki [120924 15:25]:
> Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The
> proposed "dissident test" does not work and is proven to be wrong in
> some cases already.
How can it be proven to be wrong? If some license makes it impossible
for some peopl
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > >I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
> >
> > Please poin
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed
> to help test against?)
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident>
I believe it tests against DFSG§5, "No Discrimination Against Persons
o
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
Given that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to
>make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
Maybe, or maybe not. It's not always practical to relicense a software
with many contributors.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable mad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
>groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable made up situation it is obv
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So a licence that doesn't discriminate against non-US, but forbids
> > changes made with non-US keyboards from being distributed would be
> > fine by you? (There's probably a better example.)
>
> T
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > > governments, who does it cover for you?
> >
> > I think the point her
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > governments, who does it cover for you?
>
> I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
> groups, it onl
Merritt Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In April 2005, Shi Tao was imprisoned for 10 years for "providing
> state secrets to foreign entities", partly because the local
> police traced his email address back to him (source Reporters
> Sans Frontiers). In that case, it was news of a censorship ord
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >It seems grounded in the DFSGs "1. Free redistribution" and
> > >"5. No discrimination against persons or groups".
> > It may seem so if you are willing to stretch eno
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >It seems grounded in the DFSGs "1. Free redistribution" and
> >"5. No discrimination against persons or groups".
> It may seem so if you are willing to stretch enough the meaning of the
> DFSG in ways it was never supposed to be.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>>>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>>>propose an amendment to the SC.
>> Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
>> to forbid licenses whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, it is not.
>> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
>> invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
>It originated in
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00282.html as a
&
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
> No, it is not.
> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
> invented, but which has no
Marco d'Itri writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>>propose an amendment to the SC.
> Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
> to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>propose an amendment to the SC.
Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was
to forbid licenses which provide th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
>The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
No, it is not.
The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
invented, but which has no grounds in
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
>> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
>> propose an amendment to the SC.
>
> The GPL plainly discriminates against people who li
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination
> against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed,
> propose an amendment to the SC.
The GPL plainly discriminates against people who live in areas where
software patents
will *always* come down to human judgment calls at one point or
> another.
So, is the spirit of the DFSG #5 to forbid choice-of-venue clauses, or the
anonymous contributions of the infamous dissident test ?
And who is to interpret the spirit of the different DFSG clauses :)
Friendly,
Sven
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> >> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >>
> >> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >> >>
&
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>
>> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Which is not part of the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >>
> >>
> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
> >
> >
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
http://people.debian.org/~bap
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:54:34 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> Any Stephen King fans here?
Here I am!
>
> Anyone have access to any copies of his Richard Bachman novels from
> before it was disclosed that Richard Bachman was a nom de plume of
> Stephen King?
No, but I read _The regulators_ that
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As should be well-known, Stephen King is a money machine. I find it
> hard to believe he'd have published under a pen name if to do so
> would have meant exposing himself to claims of fraudulent copyright.
Definetly.
Just to clarify, in case it was
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:36:40PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything
> > about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but
> > I don't think it renders the license invalid.
>
> At least in the US, the copyright would
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:12:41 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required
> >in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms
> >upon a work.
>
> Yes.
>
> I do not think we should commit to protect *anonymous* authorship
rovide your name and address as the primary contact for the
>> > support of your modified version, and
>> >4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base
>> > software.
>>
>>
>> (3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
>
in the intent of the author.
>
> Yes, they sort of grew out of each other, though.[1] [The weak form
> (no compelled release of information to peopple not in the
> distribution path) of the dissident test is equivalent to the dsert
> island test.]
Hmmm. I would argue that i
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> below your copyright notice. In either case the author will need to
>> argue that even though he did write the code, the *licence* notice
>> was added fradulent
[The weak form
(no compelled release of information to peopple not in the
distribution path) of the dissident test is equivalent to the dsert
island test.]
> If, on the other hand, it seeks to establish a valid and useful
> contact address (as appears, on the face of it, to be the intent,
addition to the base release version number,
> > >3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
> > > support of your modified version, and
> > >4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base
> > > software.
&
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the
> > license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it
> > wouldn't be a clear statement from the copyright holder that they
> > lice
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the
> license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be
> a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work
> appropriately.
I don't quite see how the
otice is no longer
required. (Well, ignoring the effect upon statutory damages.)
However, an improper copyright + licensing notice could make the
license itself invalid (or at least questionable) since it wouldn't be
a clear statement from the copyright holder that they licensed a work
appropriat
copyright claim, but I don't
think it renders the license invalid.
> 2) The purpose (as I understand it) of the dissident test is to point
> out licenses which require disclosure of information to inviduals to
> whom the software has not actually been distributed.
I think requiring
the
> > support of your modified version, and
> >4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base
> > software.
>
>
> (3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
This particular extension of the dissident test has always bothered
me, which is one
> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tb> Yes, absolutely! That's what started this whole discussion,
tb> IIRC.
Good. I was just trying to summarize one of the points that I care
most about (the RPSL and Helix being libre software).
bye,
andrea
--
Andrea Glorioso
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> > > make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even e
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> > make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
> > without copyright law.
>
> It only makes i
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
> without copyright law.
It only makes it more easily enforceable, and it operates purely as a
stick. I don't
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>
> Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
> another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
> important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
> publi
Andrea Glorioso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> tb> They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
> tb> rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
> tb> rules of the GPL), and they do not enhan
> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tb> They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
tb> rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
tb> rules of the GPL), and they do not enhance anybody's freedom.
tb> They are therefore onerou
Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
publication or the Affero bit are onerous.
Free software should create a sort of econom
59 matches
Mail list logo
