On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:54:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
> > I don't think it can be done in a free wa
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:07:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one.
> I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
> then I'll believe you.
I've thought about
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:17:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I have recently come to believe that the GPL's requirement for source
> distribution is fundamentally different, and is in fact not truly a
> "compelled distribution" in the fashion of the QPL. Please rip my thought
> process to shr
Josh Triplett writes:
>
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> *sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
>> times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
>> somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
>> without fee, would you consider the GP
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>>The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>>>people to break the law"?
>>
>>That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm
>>definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails.
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
>>
>>>I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
>>>secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
>>>company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is tempora
Josh Triplett writes:
>>
>> The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>> people to break the law"?
>
>That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm
>definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails.
>Thank you both.
*sig
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> > I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> > secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
> > company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
> > confidential,
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I have recently come to believe that the GPL's requirement for source
> distribution is fundamentally different, and is in fact not truly a
> "compelled distribution" in the fashion of the QPL. Please rip my thought
> process to shreds if it's bogus.
>
> The core of my arg
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> [compelled unrelated distribution]
>
>>For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
>>impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial
>>developer" is in.
>>Consid
Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
> company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
> confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>>>And did you notice that trolltech is not a copyright holder on OCaml, and
>>>therefore their opinion isn't worth a hill of beans? Annotations ar
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing
> > these
> > things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
> > border, especiall
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian, maybe i was too harsh, but sorry, i don't really like discussing these
> things, and your last post about the ocaml generated code went over the
> border, especially as i mentioned the gcc case and RMS's posts in another mail
> of this large thread.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:44:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 directio
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
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
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
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 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 Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but
> > > furthermore, i
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:26:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
> >> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "wo
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
>> knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
>> information an important one?
>
>I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
>> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than
>> "distribute source too".
>
>I'll certainly throw
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distri
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
>> distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
>
> I don't have a particular one nor am
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
> distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.
I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to drag
this co
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction.
> >> >Again, guidelines. (If the
ndex][Thread Index]
>
> Re: Summary :
> ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>
> ___
>
> * To: debian-legal@lists.
ndex][Thread Index]
>
> Re: Summary :
> ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>
> ___
>
> * To: debian-legal@lists.
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Additionally, I cannot conceive of any way of doing this in a free way
>> -- even if forced distribution to upstream on distribution of
>> modifications is accepted as free. Can I say that you must send me
>> modifications to the software I write every
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The it seems that we've reached an impasse at this level of detail, since it
> > could well be argued that forced distribution upstream can impede or enhance
> > free software and freedom in general. As such, you can't say th
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> > It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
>> > author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
>> > downstream recipient may cho
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
>>communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
>>with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 13:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
> >communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
> >with them, should not have any impact on my privacy
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:08:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Alternatively, a clean recapitulation of all this would be a good thing
> > right
> > now maybe.
>
> Quite possibly. I think that starting a clean thread for each pr
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further,
>communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools
>with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you.
Why is privacy an inherent right? Why does persona
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
> > with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
> > do you be
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:36:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
> > author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
> > downstream recipient may choose to keep such code private.
> And it could wo
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
> with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
> do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
> clari
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edmund Grimley-Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
>>secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
>>company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporaril
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why should free software support companies in not releasing their
> knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard
> information an important one?
I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but:
- The information in question will b
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:05:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > [compelled unrelated distribution]
> > > For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in cou
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:55:16AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
> >the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
> >whatever reason). That clause applies to
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:20:37PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than
> > "source if binaries".
>
> As will I, but I'll also claim that "to upstream" is still
Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
clarification of intent with regards to those issues?
If so, that may be of
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than
> "source if binaries".
As will I, but I'll also claim that "to upstream" is still not non-free.
> Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument --
> e
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:22:49AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > This is a slightly different probl
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says
> > > "you
> > > can't do that". I'
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction.
> >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be
> >used without interaction with Deb
Edmund Grimley-Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
>secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
>company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
>confidential, in that we don't want the rest of
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> > secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
>
> Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
> to use the software in question.
Of cou
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:10:05 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> > possible, I think, that a microprocessor company might want to modify
> > GCC to make it handle some new instructions that are highly
> > confidenti
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> > > secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
> >
> > Well, if they can't abide with the term
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett writes:
>> I'm not convinced that applies. The clase is "These items, when
>> distributed, are subject to the following requirements" - what does
>> "when distributed" mean? At the point at which they are distributed? If
>> distributed once,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[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.
> >As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requiremen
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 11:58]:
> Well, the fact that some national country has bullshit law (and this goes for
> both the US and France in regard to crypto), is of no consequence to the
> DFSG.
>
> Just move our servers out of the US, and into free country, and everyone will
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
>>> aren't license te
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:31:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
>> > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited t
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:03:06PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[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 sup
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
>>the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
>>whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code
>>is not avail
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction.
>Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be
>used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then it's
>just a complaint that they're gu
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
>> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally h
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
>the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
>whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code
>is not available to the general public. It
ext
>
> ___
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
> Re: Summary :
>
Arg, another poster who didn't CC me as asked. Well, let's see if the
mail-followup-to will work next time, altough since i have use lynx for this
reply, there is no chance it will work.
>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
>
>Perhaps two separate th
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> > location by choic
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:05:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> [compelled unrelated distribution]
> > For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
> > impose an embargo or export restrictions on countrie
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:10:23AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
> >on
> >request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
> >much of
> >th
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:47:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > 6. You may develop applicatio
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:19:51AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I think that this issue might be enough to get a change or two to the DFSG
> made. Compelled unrelated distribution and compelling the grant of a
> separate licence are both issues that I think need specific mention. The
> latter c
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Matthew Palmer writes:
>
> > Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> > particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> > avoid the whole issue by making the items in q
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:06:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
> gener
Matthew Palmer writes:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the
> general public (which we do).
The QPL doesn
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Matthew Palmer writes:
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> >> I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
> >> are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exis
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
> unenforcable?
Probably, but you're stil
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> > location by choic
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
>can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
>location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
>this to Iran". Instead, th
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
> this to Iran". Instea
I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
to address the non-freeness of 3b:
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute yo
Matthew Palmer writes:
>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
>> are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even though
>
>But it's really dangerous to do so. Allowing such a lic
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:35:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
> >people to break the law"?
>
> Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040720 13:54]:
> >The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
> >people to break the law"?
>
> Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
> China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>people to break the law"?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported cryptography
software
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
[compelled unrelated distribution]
> For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
> impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial
> developer" is in.
> Consider something like a ssl-libra
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> > > software items that link
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040720 04:06]:
> DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
> request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
> How much of
> this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
> nothing if yo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first "reproach".
> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests
On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream
on
request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How
much of
this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all,
you lose
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The reproach which is being done is twofold :
> >
> > 1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding
> > on
> > all parts about this cla
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
>
> 1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
> all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to this.
>
> Let's quote the whole of section
Ok, i have been counseled to stop doing a tantrum about this issue, and to
sumarize my position about this.
The reproach which is being done is twofold :
1) 6c of the QPL. I believe there has been some serious misunderstanding on
all parts about this clause in almost all posts previous to thi
94 matches
Mail list logo
