On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:09:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Strawman. Tell me how your argument differes from me
> > downloading ftp://ftp.gnu.org/bin/ls and not getting the GPL.
>
> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
> individual binaries on ftp.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the FSF starts playing by these rulkes, perhaps we shall
> have the basis of a discussion.
You seem to be regarding the FSF as the enemy here, and I think that's
unlikely to help.
The issue is about the downloading of advertised things,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If
> we
> Thomas> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
> Thomas> there wo
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We advertise in various
Thomas> ways individual .debs. It is true that we only *support* their use on
Thomas> Debian systems, which can be relied on to have GPL copies. But the
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
>> GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
>> whatever punishment you choose. But their
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> So the FSF needs to make sure that friends in the free software
Thomas> community play by the rules, even if the danger isn't so high, because
Thomas> otherwise our enemies might start ignoring the rules, and claiming the
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
Thomas> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
Thomas> there would probably be no issue here.
Strawman. Tell me h
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Reread my mail. Then realize that the GPL explicitly demands it.
>
> I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case.
Do you seriously believe that Debian (or anyone) can ignore the
provisions of the GPL that it finds inconvenient?
- Forwarded message from Hein Meling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Hein Meling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 23:44:35 +0100
To: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Weekly News - November 29th, 2000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
Dear Joey,
I don't know if
I think this boils down to one issue with only one solution that would satisfy
RMS:
Including a copy of the GPL in every single .deb
Linking to the GPL, assuming the all Debian users have copies of the GPL (which
they should/do), and claiming that all other systems that try and use .d
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:04:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the distribution of .debs. If we
> prohibited non-Debian-users people from using our dowload sites, then
> there would probably be no issue here.
I quote from the GPL here (section 3):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, section 3 says the executable code must be distributed under the
> terms of sections 1 and 2, but sections 1 and 2 don't explicitely mention
> a requirement to distribute the GPL with executable code. Also, nowhere in
> the preamble does it state that the word 'Pro
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
> out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
> nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
> then be left without know
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is a) not supported, really
> b) not what we distribute.
> We distribute a system. Our policy governs our system (debian-policy
> is not relevant to a non debian system).
We can, and do, distribute individual .debs. We
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People making rpms and not distributing said RPM's with the
> GPL shall have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beds, or
> whatever punishment you choose. But their trnagressions do not belong
> on debian policy.
We do, in fact, mak
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> Except that tools like alien do not enforce or care about the
> Thomas> dependency in any way.
>
> What does that have to do with debian policy?
Nothing, but it has
Nobody seems to have picked up the simple fact that the GPL does not
explicitly state 'you must distribute this license with executable code'.
What it does is state 'you must distribute executable code with the
complete source code, an offer for the complete source code, or the offer
you got for
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Rando Christensen wrote:
> This is nearly 10 years later. Nine and a half since gplv2. The world has
> changed a little bit, on that subject.
Ay, therein lies the rub! Isn't nine years a little late in the game to
go changing the rules? Had this been a software patent issu
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
> (headers?)
I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of GPL (or,
for that matter, any other common license) is sent on every connection...
Would a
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
>
> But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
> out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
> nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
> then be left without knowle
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rando> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
> Rando> from us,
>
> This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
> distribute alienated rpms. The pe
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> > The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
> > us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
> > the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
> > circumstance, which makes us be violating the g
>>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rando> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
Rando> from us,
This statement is not correct. The Debian project does not
distribute alienated rpms. The person at fault, if indeed there is
someone at fault,
> On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > So tell us something we do not already know. Can we not refuse
> > to accept the validity of that argument?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rando Christensen) wrote:
> Sure we can. I say, if RMS wants to banter and bicker and bitch
> and moan about it, instea
> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
> us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
> the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
> circumstance, which makes us be violating the gpl. apparently. =P
We are distributing aliened
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:26:22PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > >
> > > > In the Real-World application, though, installing 300+ copies of the GPL
> > > > is absurd, and, quite frankly, a waste of space. Which seems the only
> > > > way
> > > > to sat
> Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... we should be including the GPLed sources in our packages.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) replied:
> Except that the GPL section 3 explicitly says that providing a copy of
> the source on the same download site counts as "accompanying".
> D
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:26:22PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >
> > > In the Real-World application, though, installing 300+ copies of the GPL
> > > is absurd, and, quite frankly, a waste of space. Which seems the only way
> > > to satisfy him.
> >
> > Certainly it's not necessary, as has been poi
On 1 Dec 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> Do we really need to actuall include the GPL in every .deb containing
> GPL code? Just because there's a server where the .debs can be
> downloaded by themselves? Does this also extend to a server with
> source tree - e.g. since I can make a copy of a singl
Do we really need to actuall include the GPL in every .deb containing
GPL code? Just because there's a server where the .debs can be
downloaded by themselves? Does this also extend to a server with
source tree - e.g. since I can make a copy of a single .h file, must
it include the GPL too? Same
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rando> Unfortunately, the Argument posed by RMS, apparently, is that
> Rando> it needs to be INCLUDED with all packages, no matter what
> Rando> system it's on.
>
> So tell us somethi
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Overdose of my name follows: ;)
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rando> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> >> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > > Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depe
Ok. I have discussed this a bit with my roommate, and we have a
suggestion:
Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
(headers?) and mention that many packages, as indicated, are covered
under the GPL. We also mention that redistribution of the packages
requires giving the G
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Thomas> However, Debian is in a different position, and the problem is that
Thomas> people can and do pull
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> That's correct, but the license does not allow you to abandon
Thomas> the user to quite that degree. You are obliged to tell the
Thomas> user the rights they have with the software. You are not
Thomas> obliged to support
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As we do. We distribute the Debian systems, and with every
>> copy of a Debian system, there si the GPL as an essential
>> component. It is on the Official CD images. It is on
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> 1) Linux binaries can be run on many non-Linux systems, like BSD,
Thomas>which might not have any copy of the GPL.
These BSD systems do not use GNU binaries? no gcc? no make? no
flex? bison? bash?
Coul
>>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rando> Unfortunately, the Argument posed by RMS, apparently, is that
Rando> it needs to be INCLUDED with all packages, no matter what
Rando> system it's on.
So tell us something we do not already know. Can we not refuse
to acc
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can pull single files off the FSF's ftp archive and not
> > download the COPYING file. Is the FSF in violation as well? We
> > seem to be in august company, then.
> LOL.
>>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rando> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
>> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
>> > > package called 'license-gpl' ?
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The dependency might be fine to satisfy the point of the
Thomas> license if it were being enforced, but it isn't enforced by
Thomas> alien, and so the fact that there is a dependency (implied or
Thomas> otherwise) on some s
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Except that tools like alien do not enforce or care about the
Thomas> dependency in any way.
What does that have to do with debian policy?
manoj
--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" the artificial
42 matches
Mail list logo
