"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
>> >> modification restriction is an interesting one. I believe that it is
>> >> an attempt to accomplish a restriction on use v
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
> >> modification restriction is an interesting one. I believe that it is
> >> an attempt to accomplish a restriction on use via a restriction on
> >> modification. The intent beh
"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
> of the exclusion of other uses than the mentioned. Nothing
> distinguishes the "proprietary usage" from the "non-prorietary usage"
> when looking at the actyual useage o
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:14:55 +0100, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Under this logic, copyleft is also a use restriction. It bars
proprietary use of free software.
Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
of the exclusion of other uses than the mention
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Others have already made the point that the AGPL is not a narrowly
>> defined restriction -- that it's actually quite significant and
>> ill-defined under certain circumstances.
>
> Narrowly defined is subjective. I'm not disagreeing with your
>
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> >> Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
> >> "bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
> >> [...] users".
> >
> > No. They provide a narrowly defined restriction on modification --
> >
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > If you have one GPL-ish license designed for arcades, and another for toll
> > booths, and another for web services, then you can't use code written for
> > toll booths in a web service, and vice versa.
>
> That's a pratical p
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
> > for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
> > maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does
> > that. Maybe w
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source
> > (at up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could
> > easily be stuck in the fine p
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
>> "bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
>> [...] users".
>
> No. They provide a narrowly defined restriction on modification --
> something uncontro
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source (at
> up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could easily
> be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
I've generally been of the o
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
> problems is arcade machines. It's clearly "public performance", and players
> in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
>
> We include sources to GPL stuff on the m
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
> for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
> maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does
> that. Maybe we have a di
> > How do you distinguish between an arcade user and someone using a web
> > application? Is it the presence of a network connecting the two?
>
> I think that's an unnatural distinction. Both web users and arcade
> players are equally "users"; there are examples in both cases where
> providing
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > The bigger problem is that by arguing for this type of new law, we are
> > arguing for an expansion of existing copyright law. I'm sure that MS
> > and many other ASPs who want to bring copyright into the interactions
> > between software
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
> were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while
> other developers were not looking these people found a "consensus" to
> change what until then was the widely accepted me
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:07:08AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
> > of satisfying this for the "voicemail", "toll booth", etc. cases.
> > (Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> But that's a special case; more generally, I don't see any way at all
> of satisfying this for the "voicemail", "toll booth", etc. cases.
> (Though the thought of someone corking up a toll booth lane on a busy
> interstate to plug in a USB pen drive and download its source is
On 10/02/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Please stop repeating the fringe lie. -legal is open to all. It's just
> I never affirmed that it's not.
> Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
> were extremists or outright loons l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
>> when it starts in an interactive mode:
>>
>>Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
>>Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
>>Thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Please stop repeating the fringe lie. -legal is open to all. It's just
I never affirmed that it's not.
Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while
other developers were not look
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
You then have problems with any "derivative works must be made available
under the terms of this license" clause, which is essential to copyleft.
Not much more than today. GPLv2 is not compatible with AGPL, nor with
the proposed GPLv3.
The goal of
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:28:57PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mark Rafn:
>
> > Is a work free if some modifications are permitted, but would make
> > the resulting work non-free?
>
> Consider a program which is licensed under the plain GPL. You
> incorporate parts of OpenSSL into the progr
* Mark Rafn:
> Is a work free if some modifications are permitted, but would make
> the resulting work non-free?
Consider a program which is licensed under the plain GPL. You
incorporate parts of OpenSSL into the program, under the standard
OpenSSL licenses. The licenses are not compatible, whi
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:51:45AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
> > >ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
> > >minority on
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:41:55AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
> > >that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
> > Which part of the DFSG, exactly?
> The
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One way would be to supply a compactflash card slot that will burn the
> sources to a 1GB compactflash card. That seems a lot less outrageous
> today than it did three years ago, to my mind.
Actually, our arcade machines are somewhat
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 05:02:22PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
> problems is arcade machines. It's clearly "public performance", and players
> in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> It occurs to me that one of the biggest mistakes with the GFDL is the
> confusion caused by clauses that do not apply in many cases. Licenses
> that have options and conditionals are EXTREMELY confusing, and lead to
> hassle on the pa
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like "public
> performance". I.e., if the work is "publicly performed", source
> distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
> probably have to be defin
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I create a derivative work of web.py ("webplus.py") which *does*
> include the facility mentioned in the AGPL, no subsequent derivative
> works of "webplus.py" can ever remove it. This regardless of *my*
> desires as the author of the source tran
It occurs to me that one of the biggest mistakes with the GFDL is the
confusion caused by clauses that do not apply in many cases. Licenses
that have options and conditionals are EXTREMELY confusing, and lead to
hassle on the part of distributors (and Debian specifically) having to
evaluate ea
Mark Rafn wrote:
My first suggestion would be to try to word a license clause you believe
meets the requirements, THEN figure out how to word GPLv3 to be
compatible with it. The extra layer of indirection is confusing.
The extra layer may be slightly confusing, but there's a good reason to
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like "public
>> performance". I.e., if the work is "publicly performed", source
>> distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
>> probably have to be defined in a w
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
> >> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
> >> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
> >> ("Non-Source Distributio
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There is the issue of defining *users*. My definition of the user of a
software would be the person that is in control of hardware on which
the software run. The Affero clause actually reduce their ability to
modify their software.
I don't think we ne
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I do not find it different in practice from a similar clause in the
GPLv2:
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gno
> The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like "public
> performance". I.e., if the work is "publicly performed", source
> distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
> probably have to be defined in a way that takes into account the purpose
> for which peo
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think we need to turn this into a semantic argument about the
> term user. The authors of the free software definition and both
> versions of the GPL think that users are people who, well, *use*
> software. "Use" in this case is defined acco
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
Unfortunately the clause is not void.
(1) This is a copyleft, so all d
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -0500\">
> > The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A
> > non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to
> > use it.
>
> I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should
> perhaps think a b
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
> >ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
> >minority on -legal holding sway. That doesn't mean Debian can't reconsider
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The issue, as I understand it, comes down to one of two things. As
>Steve phrased it, it would probably fail the Chinese dissident test
>which, while not part of the DFSG, is seen as a useful tool by many
>people on this list.
And while some misguided people think it's u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> and for
>> GPLv2(2)(c) in particular.
>Bad example; if that clause were in any other license, it probably would
>have been declared non-free a long time ago.
Yes, and this shows quite clearly how a few people on debian-legal@ are
trying to change the meaning of the DFSG
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:31:16AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Although the "interface is such that" bit feels a little awkward, this
> > is a step forward. If I use a source file from eg. Apache in a tiny
> > embedded device, allow me to supply the source (that won't even fit
> > on the devic
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
>> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
>> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
>> ("Non-Source Distribution") as though
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
>>interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
>>software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
>>("Non-Source Di
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired
> > clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of
> > software should be able to modify their software.
>
> There is the issue of def
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
>It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
>mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
>and the license should be DFSG-free.
As noted by Mark Rafn, a derivative work which added the source transmission
Florian Weimer wrote:
> It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
> mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
> and the license should be DFSG-free.
Unfortunately the clause is not void.
(1) This is a copyleft, so all derivative works must use
(Kai Hendry)
> > > I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
> > > Debian.
> >
(Steve Langasek)
> > No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third
> > parties that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with
> > the DFSG.
>
(Benj. Mako H
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:55:41PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Should a smaller list than d-l be used for brainstorming this? I'm happy
> to join (or not, at your request, depending on whether my critiques are
> helpful or harmful), but I hesitate to spam d-l too much with it while
> working out
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
("Non-Source Distribution") as though you had distributed the wor
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:10:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
> ("Non-Source Distribution") as though
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> I *do* think that the spirit behind the AGPL and Affero-inspired
> clause in the GPLv3 is fully in line with our principles. *Users* of
> software should be able to modify their software.
There is the issue of defining *users*.
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication.
Thank you. :)
>
>
>>There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL:
>>
>>1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all. This is
>>certainly an open issue. I lean towards saying
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> The second argument is it fails the much more generic DFSG3 "must
> allow modification" argument. Barring modification of the license and
> copyright statement seems completely uncontroversial for obvious
> reasons. Similarly, there is consensus that barring modification of
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
> > mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
> > clause.
>
> The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A
>
Thanks, Josh. This was a pretty cogent and helpful explication.
> There are two separate, mostly-independent issues with the AGPL:
>
> 1) The issue of whether this type of clause is OK at all. This is
> certainly an open issue. I lean towards saying that it is
> theoretically possible for such
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems that web.py does not include the source transmission facility
mentioned in the AGPL. As a result, the additional clause is void,
and the license should be DFSG-free.
This is an interesting question. Is a wor
> > Several people, at least, have spoken up in favor of this sort
> > of clause being both in the spirit of the GPL and the DFSG.
>
> Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the
> input of an ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case
> of a fringe minority on -
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
Debian.
No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third
parties that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with
the DFSG.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Benj. Mako Hill w
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
> >that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
>
> Which part of the DFSG, exactly?
The issue, as I understand it, comes down to one of two things. As
Steve phra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
>mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
>clause. Several people, at least, have spoken up in favor of this sort
>of clause being both in the spirit of the GPL and the DFSG.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, it is not. The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
>that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
Which part of the DFSG, exactly?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
>ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
>minority on -legal holding sway. That doesn't mean Debian can't reconsider
debian-legal in 2003 *was* a fringe minority in i
* Steve Langasek:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
>> There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
>> Affero General Public License (AGPL).
>
>> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
>
>> I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is O
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > > There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
> > > Affero General Public License (AGPL).
> > > http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
> > > I
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
>>>There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
>>>Affero General Public License (AGPL).
>>
>>>http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
>>
>>>I thought I should just check with you guys if the lic
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
> mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
> clause.
The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A non-
free restr
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
> > Affero General Public License (AGPL).
>
> > http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
>
> > I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
> > De
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:00:03AM +, Kai Hendry wrote:
> There is a python library I want to package (#349763) that uses the
> Affero General Public License (AGPL).
> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
> I thought I should just check with you guys if the license is OK for
> Debian.
No, it is
72 matches
Mail list logo
