On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:39:37 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
> > Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes
> > more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and
> > redistribution? Heck, if their ego
On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:33:16 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> > This seems to mean that I can redistribute an *unaltered* package
> > for 28 days from its initial release, then this permission suddenly
> > *disappears*, *unless
Le dimanche 29 avril 2007 à 17:18 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit :
> Is this what is going to happen to free software as it becomes
> more popular? Every author's ego projection will trump sharing and
> redistribution? Heck, if their ego is that demanding, why don't they call
> the official version "Brian
Le samedi 28 avril 2007 à 02:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses
> > are explicitly allowed under the DFSG, although they are discouraged
> > for obvious reasons. The fact that some revisionists dislike them
> > doesn't make th
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> [...]
> > He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
> > trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
> > position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I exp
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
> > 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> > of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the latest
> > release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days).
> > Older releases may be
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:08:30 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
[...]
> > Mmmmh, would I be allowed to grab the Debian p
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> > > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
> > > the requirement is in place for *modified* w
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 06:48:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > >
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > > > place. Is it ?
>
> > > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:09:21PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > > place. Is it ?
> > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the
> > author claims. I don't think we really want to test that cl
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:22:43 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> He's now proposing to stick with LGPL but to use a restrictive
> trademark licence[1]. I think this puts us in pretty much the same
> position as with Firefox/Iceweasel, as I expected[2]. (However, there
> is already an icewm, so I
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, th
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
> > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
> > far a
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:27 +0100, I wrote:
> The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
> licence[1] which includes the clause:
>
> > 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> > of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the l
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:00:06 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when
> > the requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in
> > question is requiring a name change for even *unmod
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
> > > >
On 11003 March 1977, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> A lot of developers seem to want to include such clauses about the
>> "official" software being distributed timely and only from one source,
>> usually with good intentions, but fail to see the unfavourable
>> rammifications of their choice. I would rec
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
> > > 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian wou
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:39:57 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28
> > > days of an upstream release, I doubt t
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> [...]
> > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28
> > days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to
> > commit to that, and certainly the packa
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within 28 days
> of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like to commit to
> that, and certainly the package would have to remain unreleased.
>
> So I think this would
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:26 -0400, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 27/04/07, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
> > licence[1] which includes the clause:
> >
> > > 3. Redistributions of this software accessible pl
On 27/04/07, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
> 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the
Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I think this would require a package name change. Any other opinion
> on that?
That is what it looks like to me. Also, this clause
2. Altered versions must be clearly and explicitly marked as such,
and must not be misrepresented as being the
The author of Ion3 (which I maintain) is proposing to introduce a new
licence[1] which includes the clause:
> 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name
> of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the latest
> release with a reasonable delay from its
29 matches
Mail list logo
