Relicensing rules (was: Re: BitKeeper)

2002-01-04 Thread Peter Makholm
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of >> that. > > I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a > requirement is non-free

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of > that. I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be. -- G. Branden Robinson

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Peter Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of > that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly > kills it. I only talked about the relicensing issues. I'm sorry it wasn't clear by my quoting (I can see

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". > > T

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Stephen Zander
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't Peter> require you to give the original autor all rights to you Peter> changes. So that single part of the license I refered to Peter> does not makes it even more

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:52:01AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > (crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct > followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate) > > Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? We have a package here which we build from th

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Peter Makholm
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please elaborate. There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't require you to give the original autor all rights to you changes. So that single part of the license I refered to does not makes it even more or even less non-free. -- Når folk

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". > > Thats not non-free in any way. The Freed

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Peter Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes

Re: BitKeeper

2002-01-03 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The > license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem > to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense > of other kinds of freedom.