I am the upstream author for analog. Sorry, I'm getting into this discussion
a bit late, because I've been away on holiday. I'll try and cover everything
in this mail.
First, I'm already subscribed to debian-legal, so please stop Cc:'ing me.
Thanks.
The general point first. Joey Hess wrote:
It
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:21:24AM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
The question of whether to change now to the GPL, or dual with GPL, is
different though, and I don't think it can be done. I would have to contact
all the contributing authors. But more seriously, analog includes code from
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license?
Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render
something GPL-incompatible.
Well, some of each, in fact.
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license?
Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render
something GPL-incompatible.
Well,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
which contains the condition:
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 03:44:53PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
IANAL, but I disagree with your interpretation of this passage. It refers
explicitly to separate works. If the analog code contains chunks of zlib
code within it, then the opposite case, part of a whole should apply.
Stephen Turner wrote:
I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
program, and reasonable does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
the DFSG perfectly well to me.
The way I and
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
which contains the condition:
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't understand
how
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
program, and reasonable does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
the DFSG perfectly well
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
It's certainly not the intention; such a reading is obviously
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
It's certainly
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
texts be
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I am getting a bit confused here. Take the zlib licence, for example,
which contains the condition:
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
The FSF says that this is compatible with the GPL, but I don't
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Because there is really just not an issue. Are you trying to make up
issues where none exist? Are you genuinely confused?
Perhaps, as I suspect, you are trying to read licenses as if they were
computer programs. Licenses are interpreted by
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humans are also required to follow the text of the licence, and not let
things through just because we think they ought to have been allowed.
But we're not wondering whether or not they ought to be allowed: the
FSF has, by explicit example, demonstrated
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Let me try and restate my reasoning. When making a derived work from GPL
source, you are not allowed to add extra, more restrictive conditions on
top of the GPL conditions. But the (new) BSD licence
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't have any problem with the copyright notice. My problem is that the
BSD licence requires that you reproduce not only the copyright notice, but
also
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
violating the license, and that makes analog a
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
violating the
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Moving on to the other objection, does you may not charge
Joey for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey distributing the program violate the DFSG? The DFSG
Joey requires that a program's license not prevent sale of
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:52:06PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Moving on to the other objection, does you may not charge
Joey for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey distributing the program violate the DFSG? The
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure how meaningful that statement (you may not charge
for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of distributing the
program) even is.
What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
is reasonable--which is a
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:59:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
is reasonable--which is a limitation.
Historically, the Perl guys have finessed this point by defining
reasonable as whatever the market will bear.
In
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that the requirement you may not charge for distributing
a modified version of the program unless the source code [...] is publicly
and freely available violates the DFSG. It's not much different from
the GPL's requirements that the source
It seems we have to question this license from time to time. I wish it
was somthing better understood like the GPL. Anyway, here is the current
complaint, with my comments at the end:
- Forwarded message from Dwayne C. Litzenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Package: analog
Version: 2:5.1-1
25 matches
Mail list logo
