[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to do
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A license that says "{GPL-ish source terms}, but all modifications must
> > be released to the whole world under a BSD-style license" isn't even
> > special-
> > casing the original author, though.
>
> DFSG3
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
> original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
I can think of a couple obvious exceptions to this:
[1] Where a program is offered under optional terms, some of which
are prop
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A license that says "{GPL-ish source terms}, but all modifications must
> > be released to the whole world under a BSD-style license" isn't even
> > special-
> > casing the original author, though.
>
> DFSG3
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> A license that says "{GPL-ish source terms}, but all modifications must
> be released to the whole world under a BSD-style license" isn't even special-
> casing the original author, though.
DFSG3:
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think any license that imposes restrictions on the license of
> distributed modifications -- other than entry into a commons, that is,
> the same terms under which you received the work -- is non-Free.
Why? What effects does this have on your ab
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Why not? Which freedoms does it impact upon?
>>
>> The freedom to make and distribute modifications without paying the
>> author. Becoming part of a commons is not a payment.
>
> By that definition, all licenses that imposes any restrictions on the
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:07:10AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Licenses that require people to provide more freedoms than the DFSG
> > requires should never be non-free, even if those freedoms are only
> > provided to certain people. Free sof
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Licenses that require people to provide more freedoms than the DFSG
>> requires should never be non-free, even if those freedoms are only
>> provided to certain people. Free software isn't about fairnes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Licenses that require people to provide more freedoms than the DFSG
>> requires should never be non-free, even if those freedoms are only
>> provided t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>>> freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
>>
>> It doesn
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>modifications and derived works had to be d
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>modifications and derived works had to be d
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:40:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For quite a few GPL software projects, this is the only way to get
> changes into upstream. Does this make the software non-free? I don't
> think so, even though the process is just legally effective variant of
> the asymmetric lic
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>> Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under
>> one and sometimes under another ought to still be free.
>
> It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of
> this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:40:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For quite a few GPL software projects, this is the only way to get
> changes into upstream. Does this make the software non-free? I don't
> think so, even though the process is just legally effective variant of
> the asymmetric lic
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>> freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
>
> It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> software. They aren't on a plane with the original aut
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>> Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under
>> one and sometimes under another ought to still be free.
>
> It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of
> this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>> freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
>
> It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
> software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a
> root problem similar to that of t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> software. They aren't on a plane with the original aut
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
> software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a
> root problem similar to that of t
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
> > work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
> > modifications and derived works had to be distributed under BSD
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
> > work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
> > modifications and derived works had to be distributed under BSD
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
>>literal interpretation is what was meant?
> I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
> work under a copyleft-like licens
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
>>literal interpretation is what was meant?
> I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
> work under a copyleft-like licens
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modif
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modif
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has come up in the past, under the argument that requiring this violates
> the "under the same terms as the license of the original software" provision
> of DFSG#3: you aren't allowed to distribute modifications under the same
> terms you received th
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The same thing is possible with the GPL, with it's "any later version"
> clause.
You can release your modifications in a way that allows this, but by
contrast, you're not required to do so. You can take a GPL-licensed
work with the "a
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
>> on a w
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has come up in the past, under the argument that requiring this violates
> the "under the same terms as the license of the original software" provision
> of DFSG#3: you aren't allowed to distribute modifications under the same
> terms you received th
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
> on a website under the curr
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
>> people at graphviz org intended it either.
> The Program (including Contributions) may always be distributed
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have difficulty thinking of anything a commercial user of software
> could do that would cause the upstream author to legitimately be sued
> in the first place--if the problem is really caused by my action, then
> the author being sued is frivilous al
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The same thing is possible with the GPL, with it's "any later version"
> clause.
You can release your modifications in a way that allows this, but by
contrast, you're not required to do so. You can take a GPL-licensed
work with the "a
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
>> on a w
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
> on a website under the curr
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
>> people at graphviz org intended it either.
> The Program (including Contributions) may always be distributed
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have difficulty thinking of anything a commercial user of software
> could do that would cause the upstream author to legitimately be sued
> in the first place--if the problem is really caused by my action, then
> the author being sued is frivilous al
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
> people at graphviz org intended it either.
It can't be an issue for DFSG-freeness, because of this part:
The Program (including Contributions) may always be d
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 06:04:33PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have previously argued for this position in the context of other
> licenses, but I have become less convinced that it is actually as
> important as I used to think.
I don't feel strongly about this clause, though I'd like to unde
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is the Common Public License, version 1.0, with the revision
>> right solely tied to IBM. This is a bit surprising, but doesn't have
>> any impact on the DFSG-freeness of the thi
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
> people at graphviz org intended it either.
It can't be an issue for DFSG-freeness, because of this part:
The Program (including Contributions) may always be d
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 06:04:33PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have previously argued for this position in the context of other
> licenses, but I have become less convinced that it is actually as
> important as I used to think.
I don't feel strongly about this clause, though I'd like to unde
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author "to
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is the Common Public License, version 1.0, with the revision
>> right solely tied to IBM. This is a bit surprising, but doesn't have
>> any impact on the DFSG-freeness of the thi
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author "to the
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> > Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> > debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> > have
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> > Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> > debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> > have
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php
This is t
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial
> product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby
> agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified
> Contributor") against any losses, damages a
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php
This is t
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial
> product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby
> agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified
> Contributor") against any losses, damages a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Bjoern wrote:
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different vie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
>Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
>debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
>have a different view.
>So why this package is in non-
Hello,
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
So why this package is in non-free?
Thanks
Bjoern
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Bjoern wrote:
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different vie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
>Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
>debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
>have a different view.
>So why this package is in non-
Hello,
i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
have a different view.
So why this package is in non-free?
Thanks
Bjoern
63 matches
Mail list logo
