On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> This does not mean they can't use the code in products not licensed
> under the QPL. With clause #3b, contributors have to give them
> permission to do so. The clause only means they can't take submitted
> code for proprietary works an
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at
> >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please
> >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by
> >how close it c
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of
> >the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also
> >critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most
> >of the useless
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> No, I don't think they can do that. The permission grant in QPL#3b
> says "provided such versions remain available under these terms in
> addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer", which only
> seems to allow them to release it un
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
>> half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
>> discussions here.
>
>Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, a
On 2004-08-24 22:46:58 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sometimes the subject line is a really awful summary of a thread.
Not my fault. It was broken when I got here, honest! ;-)
Actually, I think there were a couple of really awful subject lines
last week. It would really h
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:48:13PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Choice-of-Venue is OK with the DFSG, over 20 posts from 16 to 22 Aug,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/maillist.html#00364
Sometimes the subject line is a really awful summary of a thread.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Index for this date range starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/maillist.html#00359
The 7 most active threads:
NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1
release going into sarge, over 100 posts this week to 22 Aug,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega
On 2004-08-24 17:56:54 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes: [stuff]
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here. [...]
I think I've disagreed with Andrew
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:19:27AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > The license is binding on the licensee,
>
> Not in the same way, assuming it really is a licence, rather than a
> contract.
Maybe; if I modify software and distribute the result, and I misunderstand
the license, I can still
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Section 9.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I don't see anything in there about the FSF repl
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
> your patch to it P(A). Then there's the version the initial developer
> releases, B=A+P(A). He releases that to his dog under the QPL, so it's
> available,
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
>
> Section 9.
I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my license to
Emacs 21 with something else. The part which binds me, ins
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
> > a mistake and that the GPL is on
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Section 9.
> I don't see anything like that.
> All I see is a common license from authors that software is available
> under the GNU GPL, version 2 or any later version, at the discreti
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
> >> currently includes a large number of people who are on
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>Really? *all*? So, what is the val
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
>>> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
>>
>> I'm arguing that what you pe
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:21:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
> >> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
> >
> > I'm
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
>> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
>
> I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence
> of know
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> I felt that while the initial developer is bound to release the same
>> version under the QPL also, he/she is allowed to give to others
>> permission to modify the differently licensed ve
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
>> currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
>> extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed withi
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What do you find non-free in this ?
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not grant
>> me. If that were symmetric, I would not object to this under DFSG
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
> >>the NM
> >>process?
> >As I said,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
> > > applicant:
> > >
> >
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
the NM
process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved.
If *all* answers
On 2004-08-24 16:22:49 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see how you could measure this appearance:
[...] Can you post the methodology and results you used, please? It
will be very useful for some other situations.
It's an impression. Hence
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> * I can't fork the code, even distributing as patche
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > > answers to 5a and 6 wo
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > > some DDs. Anyway,
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
>> feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
>> only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater t
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[...] I accept *all* answers, even
>
> Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the
> NM process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants unde
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:55:05AM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
>
> MySQL addressed this issue now by making yet another version of their FLOSS
> Exception license public which should resolve all problems.
>
About the new issue, it could be of interest to understand if OpenSSL
license can be
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
>> >> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it free
> > What do you find non-free in this ?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not grant
> me. If that were symmetric, I would not object to this under DFSG 3.
Same condition exists with the GPL. [The
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
> >> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if
> >> > you
> >> > public
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see how you could measure this appearance: for example, by using the
> number of unique posters/developers making such statements compared to
> the total number of posters/developers; but I'm not sure of the
> technicalities of doing it. Can you post the me
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
>> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if
>> > you
>> > publicly distribute it, or from one of the chain of people you distribute
>> > it
>> >
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
> >> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
> >
>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:48:13AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any
> >> > other
> >> > licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence.
> >> >
> >> > What
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any
>> > other
>> > licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence.
>> >
>> > What do you find non-free in this ?
>>
>> It compels me to grant upstream a right whic
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to
> >practice it.
>
> But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots
> of the *legal* license terms that are bandie
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
> understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
> prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
> one's peer
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >> > Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well po
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A
>>> hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license.
>>> If you
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> > Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
>> > licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for
On 2004-08-24 14:10:42 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the
patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is
only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer
population at lar
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
> feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
> only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the
> developer population at large. That's
On 2004-08-24 15:01:37 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Debian.
I find the concept of "the more extreme end of the range" odd. What,
there's only one
On 2004-08-24 15:15:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
feature macros are a grave mistake [...]
Arrrgh, this list was such a peaceful place. Why do you want to bring
that horrible flamewar here? ;-)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main.
>
> Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that
> would be all right. :)
Err, forget what i said. i thought of patents, not licences.
F
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:59:41PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0200, Nicolas CANIART wrote:
> > > (Yes, the clause repeats itself; I have no idea why.)
> >
> > At http://cecill.info/faq.en.html#clarification parapraph 2, it is said
> > that this is a translat
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
> > licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
> > modifications under a
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > > some DDs. Anyway,
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
>> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
>
>Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a
>strange
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:54:16PM +0100,
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 60 lines which said:
> On the other hand, I can't imagine how MS could have any valid
> patents on such a simple thing. So it's quite possible that the
> whole thing is a load of bull.
It is clearl
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the
> patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is
> only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer
> population at large. That seems like a r
Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the "more
permissive" license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see
such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them
$10k or so, and you get a permissive license. If you don't pay, you
get the QPL.
As far as t
* Andrew Suffield:
> Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true
> then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an
> unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant:
>
>> 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed
>> on debian-le
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more
> > interesting things l
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The MARID Working Group of IETF
> (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html) is close to
> settle on its Sender-ID protocol.
>
> Microsoft claims patents on some parts of Sender-ID
> (http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
>> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
>
> Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? T
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a
strange thing to claim.
> > particul
The MARID Working Group of IETF
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html) is close to
settle on its Sender-ID protocol.
Microsoft claims patents on some parts of Sender-ID
(http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html).
Microsoft drafted a licence for those wishing to im
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Votre participation au 'Debat du Jeudi'
Cher lecteur,
Nous accusons réception de votre e-mail et nous vous remercions de votre
participation au "Débat du Jeudi" de Maxifoot !
Votre message sera pris en compte dans les statistiques du débat. Nous essayons
de pub
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The license is binding on the licensee,
Not in the same way, assuming it really is a licence, rather than a
contract.
> who should not have to be bound
> by a text in a language that they don't understand properly.
> (The only solution available to me, in tha
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:02:47AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > I think that it's fine to have licenses in other languages; I just think
> > that there should always be an authoritative license in English, too.
>
> I don't think that's acceptable as a general rule. The licence is
> bindi
On 2004-08-24 06:54:22 +0100 Seo Sanghyeon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/doc/License.txt
[...]
Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
Debian main? What could "This is covered under GPL, but only for
non-commercial use" mean
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to
5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs.
[...]
I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a
and 6
s
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that it's fine to have licenses in other languages; I just think
> that there should always be an authoritative license in English, too.
I don't think that's acceptable as a general rule. The licence is
binding on the licensor, who should not have to b
Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now I am puzzled by its license:
> http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/doc/License.txt
> Quote:
> "If it is your intent to use this software for non-commercial,
> non-prioprietary[sic] purposes, such as for academic research purposes,
> this soft
O Martes, 24 de Agosto de 2004 ás 14:54:22 +0900, Seo Sanghyeon escribía:
> Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
> Debian main? What could "This is covered under GPL, but only for
> non-commercial use" mean at all?
I'd guess that it's just the usual association pro
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:54:22PM +0900, Seo Sanghyeon wrote:
> Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
> Debian main? What could "This is covered under GPL, but only for
> non-commercial use" mean at all?
It means the copyright holder doesn't understand the GPL. This
I am interested in MontyLingua, a wonderful natural language(well,
English only) processing toolkit, which can use common sense library.
Project homepage
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/
Now I am puzzled by its license:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/doc/License.txt
Quote:
75 matches
Mail list logo
