On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
then I'll believe you.
I've thought about this
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:54:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
I don't think it can be done in a free way, but
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
confidential, in that we
Walter Landry wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Josh Triplett writes:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm
definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails.
Thank you
Josh Triplett writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
*sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
without fee, would you consider the GPL to be
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:17:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I have recently come to believe that the GPL's requirement for source
distribution is fundamentally different, and is in fact not truly a
compelled distribution in the fashion of the QPL. Please rip my thought
process to shreds
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:44:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:28:37PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Nevertheless, I've refrained from posting further directly on the QPL
issue. The consensus of debian-legal seems to be evolving in more
clever directions
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing these
things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
border, especially as i mentioned the gcc case and RMS's posts in another mail
of this large thread.
You
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing
these
things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
border, especially as i
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
And did you notice that trolltech is not a copyright holder on OCaml, and
therefore their opinion isn't worth a hill of beans? Annotations are useful
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:26:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
distribute to upstream authors is a worse
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but
furthermore, it
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian, i ask you to not use again my name in your post, nor to
participate in this thread about this.
Requesting that people refrain from participating in threads on -legal
is not reasonable at all.
Everyone is allowed to contribute to any thread
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:48:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian, i ask you to not use again my name in your post, nor to
participate in this thread about this.
Requesting that people refrain from participating in threads on -legal
is not
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:48:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian, i ask you to not use again my name in your post, nor to
participate in this thread about this.
Feel free to killfile a thread or refrain from reading any post, but
to attempt
]
Re: Summary :
ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
___
* To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
* Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL
]
Re: Summary :
ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
___
* To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
* Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, XXX = you must distribute source, too is also a restriction.
Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to drag
this
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
I don't have a particular one nor am I going
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, XXX = you must distribute source, too is
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:47:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
6. You may develop application
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:10:23AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:05:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
[compelled unrelated distribution]
For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never
Arg, another poster who didn't CC me as asked. Well, let's see if the
mail-followup-to will work next time, altough since i have use lynx for this
reply, there is no chance it will work.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads
___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Summary :
ocaml, QPL and the DFSG
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code
is not available to the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:31:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040721 11:58]:
Well, the fact that some national country has bullshit law (and this goes for
both the US and France in regard to crypto), is of no consequence to the
DFSG.
Just move our servers out of the US, and into free country, and everyone will
be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement
for
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
I'm not convinced that applies. The clase is These items, when
distributed, are subject to the following requirements - what does
when distributed mean? At the point at which they are distributed? If
distributed once, these must
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:10:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
possible, I think, that a microprocessor company might want to modify
GCC to make it handle some new instructions that are highly
confidential, then
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
to use the software in question.
Of course, but
Edmund Grimley-Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of to upstream being worse than
source if binaries.
As will I, but I'll also claim that to upstream is still not non-free.
Firstly, there's an advancing freedom argument --
ensuring
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
clarification of intent with regards to those issues?
If so, that may be of
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:20:37PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of to upstream being worse than
source if binaries.
As will I, but I'll also claim that to upstream is still not
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
whatever reason). That clause applies to *any*
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:55:16AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
information an important one?
I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but:
- The information in question will be
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edmund Grimley-Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
downstream recipient may choose to keep such code private.
And it could work the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
Why is privacy an inherent right? Why does personal
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:08:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Alternatively, a clean recapitulation of all this would be a good thing
right
now maybe.
Quite possibly. I think that starting a clean thread for each
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 13:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
Why is
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
downstream recipient may choose to keep
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The it seems that we've reached an impasse at this level of detail, since it
could well be argued that forced distribution upstream can impede or enhance
free software and freedom in general. As such, you can't say that
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Additionally, I cannot conceive of any way of doing this in a free way
-- even if forced distribution to upstream on distribution of
modifications is accepted as free. Can I say that you must send me
modifications to the software I write every time you
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to this.
Let's quote the whole of section 6).
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding
on
all parts about this clause in
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all,
you lose
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first reproach.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040720 04:06]:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
How much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
nothing if you give
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040720 13:54]:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for forces
people to break the law?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never thought hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
this to Iran. Instead, the
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never thought hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
this to Iran. Instead, the terms
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says you
can't do that. I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
location by choice. I never
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
unenforcable?
Probably, but you're still
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Matthew Palmer writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even
Matthew Palmer writes:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
general public (which we do).
The QPL doesn't
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:06:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
general
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Matthew Palmer writes:
Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
avoid the whole issue by making the items in question
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:19:51AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I think that this issue might be enough to get a change or two to the DFSG
made. Compelled unrelated distribution and compelling the grant of a
separate licence are both issues that I think need specific mention. The
latter can
Ok, i have been counseled to stop doing a tantrum about this issue, and to
sumarize my position about this.
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to
76 matches
Mail list logo
