> > In context of the above, someone should be able to modify
> > and use the software in a way not conformant to the MPEG-4 specifications,
> > but the license is fine in saying that modification can't be redistributed
> > (just as I can't distribute software that violates the GPL).
>
> I'm terri
> I think Debian (and OSI) needs to decide whether or not this is a
> philosophy they reject, and thus patch the hole in the DFSG/OSD. Or,
> ignore it until it becomes an actual issue. It was this kind of
> ambiguity, as well as a lack of general public interest in seeing problems
> in the OSD/DF
s of
rights to redistribution of modified versions.
> Thus, the OpenDivx license is in violation of the DFSG.
>
> References:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00109.html
>
> Among others. (for some reason the search engine for -legal isn't
> working so we
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:40:39PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
>
> References:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00109.html
>
> Among others. (for some reason the search engine for -legal isn't
> working so well).
Another reference:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0006/msg00041.htm
ot quietly on debian-legal.
> Debian-legal has repeatedly held that requiring or prohibiting
> particular behavior as a condition of distributiing modified versions
> is in violation of the Fields of Endeavor clause of the DFSG.
>
> Thus, the OpenDivx license is in violatio
e
DFSG has been consistenly interpreted to mean that some aspect of a
license is or is not free, then that should be taken to be a real
factor in our deliberations.
Its application here would be thus:
Debian-legal has repeatedly held that requiring or prohibiting
particular behavior as a conditio
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
> in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
> program from being used in a business, or f
ed that modified version, we'd
> > all agree that minimum, such a term like #6 in the so-called OpenDivX
> > license violates DFSG #3.
>
> "Must allow" doesn't mean "Must allow unconditionally". The OpenDiVX
> license allows modifications a
were Apache, and the copyright holder would accuse me of breech of
> contract for modifying the software to listen on a different port and accuse
> me of copyright infringement if I distributed that modified version, we'd
> all agree that minimum, such a term like #6 in the so-called OpenDi
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:26:30AM -0700, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > In context of the above, someone should be able to modify
> > and use the software in a way not conformant to the MPEG-4 specifications,
> > but the license is
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> In context of the above, someone should be able to modify
> and use the software in a way not conformant to the MPEG-4 specifications,
> but the license is fine in saying that modification can't be redistributed
> (just as I can't
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Davide Puricelli wrote:
> 1. You may use the Codec (and any Larger Work created by you) to
> create Encoded Content, and may use, copy, distribute, display and
> transmit that Encoded Content, provided that Encoded Content may not
> be used for direct comme
that modified version, we'd
all agree that minimum, such a term like #6 in the so-called OpenDivX
license violates DFSG #3.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> It's not an open source license. Term #6 places limitations on distributing
> modified copies.
Erm, so does every copyright license. To be specific, it sounds like
your concern is over adherence to a standard being one of the conditions
for redistrib
I contacted the Project Mayo guys a few weeks ago about this, telling
them that I was worried about this license which they claim (and
probably want) to be OpenSource, and which obviously isn't. They don't
seem to see the issues as real problems. A few other people are trying
to convince them as
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:01:27PM +0100, Davide Puricelli wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to hear some comments about OpenDivX license that it's attached
> below:
>
> DivX Open License
> =
> Version 1.0
>
> Copyright (C) 2001 Project Mayo. Everyone is
Hi, I'd like to hear some comments about OpenDivX license that it's attached
below:
DivX Open License
=
Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 2001 Project Mayo. Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it
is not allowed.
17 matches
Mail list logo
