On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:51:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Often licences have or do not have specifics in how they're being
applied to software. In our favourite furry Firefox case, there is
stuff in the package not under the same licence as the rest.
That's just a case of multiple licenses,
Here's the interesting thing: are the summaries trying to be
everything to everyone and that's why they don't work?
Francesco Poli wrote:
When I find out some useful or interesting piece of software (i.e.
program or documentation or music or ...), I try to determine its
(DFSG-)freeness. [...]
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
They'd have helped me either keep up with what's going on without
actually looking at the list or at
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:32:44 + Mark Brown wrote:
I stopped making the periodic summaries and no-one has complained
yet.
I'm not used to complain if a volunteer seems to not have enough time to
get a job done... (unless he/she has promised to do so, but this is not
the case now IIRC).
Mark Brown For what it's worth I'd noticed that the summaries had vanished -
Francesco Poli So did I.
Thanks for that and the comments off-list. What would the period
summaries have done to help you with the Eclipse thread? Or did you
mean the long licence summaries? What would they have done?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your messages suggested that you'd review after a few months
mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good
opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned
out like you imagined?
Sorry for the delay in responding. I think the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll do this in the next day or so.
It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached).
I'll pass along whatever I learn.
--
G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-12 02:46]:
IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You did not use the words delegate or official, nor anything synonymous
as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.
Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragraph
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you aren't
suggesting this, then that comment is irrelevant.
Branden
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
browsers *other* than Netscape, right?
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
1. someone can explain why choice of venue can be DFSG-free;
This simply isn't how some people in the Project think.
The alternative approach is to assume that anything is DFSG-free until proven
otherwise. Historical evidence shows that
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical
browsers *other*
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:41:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Branden Robinson writes:
This is interesting. Do you have any references where I [can] read
more about it?
The correct term is copyright misuse. Google finds lots of hits.
Wikipedia:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-12 02:46]:
IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
It's interesting that you say that, Mr Robinson. Last time I
suggested that -legal should
On 2004-07-14 21:19:33 +0100 Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I encouraged summarizing and
documenting the findings of -legal about licenses [...]
Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about debian-legal
review of licenses suggested
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:32:24PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
As such, if a copyright permission condition is an everything is
forbidden except X trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
the
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:32:30PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I never meant to imply that debian-legal was actually doing this, since I
don't
have any examples (in no small part because I haven't gone looking for them)
but rather that the post I replied to was demonstrating the kind of
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:46:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In any case, the attitude that kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary
thought strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project
went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our
response is
Here is an interesting paper on trademark misuse:
http://www.cla.org/trademark%20misuse.pdf
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
My overly clever rhetoric started an unintended
quarrel with good free-software people who are
my friends not my foes. I ask their pardon. A
simpler statement from me would have sufficed.
Branden said it better than I did. He wrote,
By adopting a milquetoast approach we do the
Mozilla
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
I raised two main issues at the meeting itself:
1) The use of copyright law in an attempt to protect trademarks. This is
potentially going to be an issue for us, as it leads to artwork that we
can't distribute in main. This is also less than ideal for upstream
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:07:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be
nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people beating
upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology.
I never meant to imply that
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:09:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Confrontational tends to be an excuse to avoid discussing the
issue. X-Oz is the last company I remember playing this game. It
generally takes the form of We're giving you the software, so you
must accept our judgement of the
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as
such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not,
such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate
with these
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as such
have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, such
training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate with these
Hi,
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 20:57, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that
can't be run with free Java implementations.
This is good news. Well done to GNOME.
Note that this
I was present at the 2004 GUADEC (GNOME Users and Developers Europen
Conference) in order to represent Debian on the GNOME advisory board (at
the request of the DPL) and to talk to companies active in the Linux
desktop community. Several things were brought up several times by
different people:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not
obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be
excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were
genuine efforts to be DFSG
I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been
pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only
cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone,
asking for cc if you need it.
On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL
MJ Ray writes:
As such, if a copyright permission condition is an everything is
forbidden except X trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on the
Matthew's report is interesting and appreciated.
Some companies cannot seem to restrain
themselves from stirring the mud in the license
swamp, can they? Like three-year-old boys, they
just love to stir that mud.
Some companies feel that various licenses were
genuine efforts to be DFSG free
Matthew wrote:
2) The possibility that GNOME's adoptation of Java as an application
development language would result in software depending on a closed
JDK.The consensus appears to be that GNOME will never ship code that
can't be run with free Java implementations
java-gnome has worked off
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
Some companies feel that various licenses were
genuine efforts to be DFSG free ...
Maybe some companies should genuinely stop
trying to invent new free licenses. Still, if
(a) they feel that they absolutely must have
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:06PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
Some companies feel that various licenses were
genuine efforts to be DFSG free ...
Maybe some companies should genuinely stop
trying to invent
On 2004-07-07 02:41:27 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do have a question on an individual package-by-package basis,
who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG?
I believe that, ultimately, ftpmaster are responsible for the archive.
They listen to
36 matches
Mail list logo
