On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:07:24PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> >>1. You don't need a .wav "source" for an .ogg "binary"
> >>2. You don't need upstream pic "source" for the {png, jpeg, etc.} "binary"
> >>3. You don't need some native font format if we have the "binaries"
My opinion is that "source"
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
>
>A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
>to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
>problems and require exceptions (e.g. openssl). AFAIK the new
>s
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Adam Majer wrote:
> From now on I will file RC bugs against *ALL* software not written
> in straight C. Why? Because *I* consider that ALL non-C versions of
> the software are binary, and I *demand* the source code.
First off, we've consistently used "the prefered form for
mod
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:58:17PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>My entire point here is that,
>>
>>1. You don't need a .wav "source" for an .ogg "binary"
>>2. You don't need upstream pic "source" for the {png, jpeg, etc.} "binary"
>>3. You don't need some native font fo
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > > automatically receive the right to modify
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 than I would have imagined, and I don't think my
> absence from that
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> > software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually
> > licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:48:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004
>> > 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 read
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> | Choice of Law
> |
> | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> | settled by the Court of Versailles.
>
> Ok, this is the last point of co
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
> > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simpl
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > regarding libcwd. At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I
> > haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle. If you look at the
> > ocaml licensing page
> >
> > http://caml.inria
Because you might be overly intoxicated and/or hospitalized taking
drinks for everything Sven does, I suggest a simple case race is
probably about as much alcohol as you should ever consume at one time we
will forgive if you can't take all the drinks :)
Dan
Brian Nelson wrote:
Sven Luther <[
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 a
Hotel Acapulco. Grazie per averci contattato. La sua richiesta è stata
inoltrata. Sarà contattato dal nostro personale nel più breve tempo possibile
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:17:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
>
> *You've* driven three people out
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > What, even the SSLeay license? It's not a BSD license, and fuck knows
> > what "compatible with OpenSource Initiative criteria" is supposed to
> > mean.
> >
>
> MySQL exception says: "Due to the many variants of some o
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
against them. Who is exactly
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An
> > example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a
> > case
> > were
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
>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
> > > > > things.
> > > > So
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:20:00PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
> > > situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
> > > make the software available to the ge
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 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
> > > > things.
>
> > > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
> >
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the
> upstream author doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedom.
>
> I'm also confused by the moral rights issue. Under a moral rights
> regime, does an author have the right to have any ref
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
> > situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
> > make the software available to the general public.
>
> Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.
According to
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>
> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
> you don't like, it must be said.
Not
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of things.
> > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
> > users who exercise their rights on software in main, so long as the DFSG
> > doe
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:36:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> >> Nice for doing X?
> >>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
> > >
> > > (1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
> > > goes against tradition.
> >
> > Could you
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
> >
> > (1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
> > goes against tradition.
>
> Could you define more precisely what is meant by cost of administration ? I
> think i am going
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sven Luther writes:
>>
>> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
>> >> Nice for doing X?
>> >
>> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question
>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:07:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | Choice of Law
>
> > | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> > | settled by the Court of Versailles.
>
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> Nice for doing X?
> >
> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> > hand here.
>
> Contract
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
> > defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
> > not the phys
Sven Luther writes:
>> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
>> Nice for doing X?
>
> I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> hand here.
Contract law can override that. That does not mean we have to accept
that kind of overri
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
> defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
> not the physical means to be present ?
You believe it's ok to assume all French jud
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:51:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:34:33PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > http://www.mysql.com/pro
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> | Choice of Law
> | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> | settled by the Court of Versailles.
> Ok, this is the last point of contention. The choice of laws seems to be
> acc
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
> > permission that they gave you?
>
> Because upstream used one of your modification in a private version of the
> software, without including it in the QPLed version for example ?
Isn't that
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:34:33PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
> >
> > > A few programs link curre
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors
> >> > based on
> >> > the licence ?
> >>
> >> I am not sure w
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:34:33PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
>
> > A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
> > to retain compatibility with other
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based
>> > on
>> > the licence ?
>>
>> I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for
>> action against the authors
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:35:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Sven Luther writes:
>
> > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >In the end, we still come back to the fact that we're dealing with a
> >set of guidelines that needs to be thoughtfully applied to a
> >license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test,
> >where X is free, and Y i
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
> > the licence ?
>
> I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for
> action against the authors: it grants others more rights tha
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:55:16PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
> > the licence ?
>
> How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
> permission that they
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:29:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
> suspect a copyright-based license clause would a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:03:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'd challenge "certainly". It's the most reasonable interpretation,
> considering that we want to allow people to use the software itself, too,
> but throwing "certainly" in there is a little strong.
I think the distinction is moot
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
>> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
>> actually engage him in conversation
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > they are an implicit consequence of violating the license. Likewise,
> > Debian considers licenses non-free if they say "You may only use this
> > software in legal ways" because that discriminates against dissidents
> > where there are repressive laws.
What'
Sven Luther writes:
>> Unless I live or do business where you or SCO are (or some court wants
>> to look silly in front of the world) you and SCO would have to file
>> suit where I am. You could not sue me in France, and SCO could not
>> sue me in Utah. The license is non-free when it compels me
[ Apologied for the delay in responding; I've had hardware issues
stopping me seeing this ]
Don Armstrong writes:
>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> What part of
>>
>> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>>
>> The license must not discriminate against any person o
Sven Luther <[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.
> The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
> >
> > Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people
> > not
> > having the time or money to play legal g
Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
> A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
> to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
> problems and require exceptions (e.g. ope
Sven Luther writes:
>> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
>
> Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people not
> having the time or money to play legal games.
That is why most licenses don't bother to mention lawsuits at all:
they a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:26AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
> >> physically present (either in person or through counsel) before t
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
>> physically present (either in person or through counsel) before the
>> judge, so that they can efficiently agree on scheduling and procedu
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC, there is no requirement for a private individual to be
> >> represented by a lawyer in an English court, although many are.
> >> Addit
Please do not cc me. I am subscribed. I have tried to respect your
requests in the past.
On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a
significant
additio
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> IIRC, there is no requirement for a private individual to be
>> represented by a lawyer in an English court, although many are.
>> Additionally, the case would probably be heard in the appropriate
>> court neares
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:30:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> > trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> > language above :
>
> Firs
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in
> >> a
> >> public mailing list. This way others can play alo
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> >Versailles is
> >probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
> >competence
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant
unless INRIA have pub
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
>> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
>> actually engage him in conversation.
>
> So, you are cl
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
problems and require exceptions (e.g. openssl). AFAIK the new
statement should allow all those progr
On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
competence
and fluent in the Laws of France, in a country local to the
defendent. I
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
> actually engage him in conversation.
So, you are clearly not interested in solvi
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:00:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:38:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-23 13:25:04 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >| 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
> >other
> >| software items that link with the original or modified versions of
> >the
> >| So
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
actually engage him in conversation.
Every time he does one of the following, take a drink.
* His rebuttal of your argument includes the word "bogus"
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anywa
On 2004-07-23 13:25:04 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
other
| software items that link with the original or modified versions of
the
| Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
following
| requ
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:18:19PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-23 11:59:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[...] ask himself if he honestly
> >believes to have the legal background enough to make claim.
>
> I assume that this is not a suggestion that only replies of cer
On 2004-07-23 11:59:33 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] ask himself if he honestly
believes to have the legal background enough to make claim.
I assume that this is not a suggestion that only replies of certified
lawyers have value, else your contribution has no value eithe
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok this is my third and last tentative to summarize this whole mess, and i
> would ask any participant here to ask himself if he is ready to defend its
> opinion before a judge before posting, and to ask himself if he honest
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
>> [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and
>> [b] using some other license which happens to include terms
Josh Triplett writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is
>> probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based
>> on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties)
>> of software is not, as far a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:13:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right
Ok, again i repost here my conclusions about the current state of the QPL as
seen in the ocaml case :
In conclusion, there may be only two points at discussion here, which cast
some doubt about the DFSG-freeness of the QPL as applied to ocaml :
1) Do we consider the right to include modificatio
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
> analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
> tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
> analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
> tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually
> licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The claim that this fails DFSG #1 has
> been made
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> > > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in dis
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:01:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, it is evident. The sect
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> > > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under su
Ok, here goes my own full analysis of the ocaml and its QPL licence, please
don't followup on this one, but provide your own full analysis, and followup
on the discussion in separate subthread of the parent post, one issue per
subthread.
The actual text of the ocaml licence is quoted with "| " as
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, it is evident. The section 6 covers how you distribute these code
> > > linking with the librar
Hello,
Ok this is my third and last tentative to summarize this whole mess, and i
would ask any participant here to ask himself if he is ready to defend its
opinion before a judge before posting, and to ask himself if he honestly
believes to have the legal background enough to make claim. Also, fo
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:21:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this
> > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued
>
> Do you thin
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:08:05AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:54:29PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
> > > or giving away the software ..."
> > >
> > > I believe "may not restrict" is the o
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the
> > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Where in it says you have to ?
>
> Where in it says that you don't? For my part, I can't see how either
> interpretation is more plausible than the other.
>
> In thi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow
> > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a
> > licence, and they are other who don't.
>
> Neither would I.
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
