"Microsoft's empty promise"
by Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
This article by the FSF is hardly fresh news, but I think its
content is disturbing:
Is it true that the Microsoft Community Promise really is only a
covenant-not-to-sue (which does not have to be respected by any
third party to whom any patents may be transferred), rather than a
real patent licence? If this is the case, how does this effect
Mono's place in Fedora? Doesn't this potentially make it an
encumbered item?
I use Mono and plan to be using it as a large part of my day-to-day
work, so I would very much like to see it continue to be treated as
a legitimate Fedora package.
Thanks for any viewpoints!
Blessings,
Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuXffsACgkQQJM2U8zwlkaWNwP+NDKJHOe7zHjs6Cz0soVrAU5Tiogi
Zd8SLzlGtYmETHz+GTlWq99DKvPNgtNO/GthDr2gwMbBz84YHqJHnqbyym0ZTHg2VIFq
QoNHAhjIMTuRu/ob7BHCyPZliR8BfEtjOAFEZ6+36f/cevtH1MUMI/wp5EMuruRI8FMH
di4Hp0o=
=KgOf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years
updating the MPL
by Luis Villa
Hello, Fedora legal geeks.
Earlier today Mozilla announced that we're launching a community
process to update, simplify, and modernize the MPL. You can find more
information about the process at http://mpl.mozilla.org/
We're planning to address issues relevant to this group such as making
the license more generic, (hopefully) reducing the number of duplicate
licenses, and making the license easier to understand (so that Fedora
contributors aren't worrying about what it means). We're fairly
confident that the updated version will continue to fulfill the
requirements of the Open Source Definition, and therefore be
acceptable to Fedora, but we also want to make sure this is the case
and continues to be the case. Your feedback on the MPL and Fedora
would be a great help here.
Because we want to make sure that the license continues to work well
for Linux distributions, we'd like to make sure information about the
process and participation fora are easy for you to find. I will of
course continue to hang out on this list, but we're hoping we can
aggregate
many comments through our own tools:
* co-ment for comments on the issues, text, etc. The more that can
be done via co-ment the better, given our limited bandwidth for
reading
and discussion. Available at http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/
* mpl-update mailing list for discussion of the process and
important announcements like new drafts, information at:
http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html#governance-mpl-update
Please feel free to join the process through any of these tools, or to
contact me directly if there is a topic that doesn't seem to fit in
either of those tools.
Thanks- look forward to working with you-
Luis
--
Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal
work email: lvilla(a)mozilla.com (preferred)
work phone: 650-903-0800 x327
personal: http://tieguy.org/about/
14 years
"Microsoft's empty promise" - article link
by Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here is the article I was referring to in my last mail...forgot to
link it before sending, sorry!
http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuXfm4ACgkQQJM2U8zwlkbZyQP+LgWtP9Fmvpd8RCEC0zaBcJSzUrTi
zzlhxVTRjcZ49q1ijG6jtQH1LTp8nzUnlGZr1+33b+5AWbLKEnB97RJq3J53X9EEaTzS
4AsK3vK1+Sh4DlGygwEzXk5cvgvIDQjku0R8jOardPsQproV/KYOMTBHuwoVYXp1IdLz
BG5strk=
=fenb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Does the GPL cover this?
by Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:38:48 +0100 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>On 03/08/2010 03:27 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to implement some Java-beans specific functionality
>> into a GTK project I am writing in C#. Basically, I want to make
>> interfaces/classes that mimic the functionality of Bean-specific
>> stuff like PropertyChangeListener, ActionListener etc.
>>
>> It is really not much coding or complex at all, and I will _not_
>be
>> looking at the Java sourcecode for this, and the only things I
>am
>> thinking of _copying_ are the names of the of the methods and
>> interfaces/classes in question.
>>
>> However, would doing this cause me to have any obligations under
>> the GPL, ASL or other applicable license for the Java classes? I
>am
>> guessing functionality is not copyrightable, but what about
>names
>> of classes etc?
>
>Well, first of all, an argument could be made that when you look
>at
>sourcecode file A which does foo, then you go and implement
>sourcecode
>file B which also does foo, that sourcecode file B is a derived
>work,
>and needs to inherit the licensing from file A.
>
>By choosing identical method names, if it ever got legally
>complicated,
>you might run into trouble proving that your code was not a
>derived work
>of the other code.
>
>If you're really not planning on copying any of the functional
>code, I
>would personally recommend that you not reuse the function names,
>not
>only for the legal murkiness that it would cause, but also because
>it
>might cause confusion with the API for the other code.
>
>~spot, who is not a lawyer, thus, this is not legal advice, and
>you
>should not treat it as such
Ok, thanks again Spot!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuWICsACgkQQJM2U8zwlkZ8ewP/cK6bH8v6WYjR4u0SILqYkLUec8t0
U9pIWPAdXwZqxPFkqNWuqlhIpPQ2upH+Etb4YPbDFYkcm4TLI1LXEvxYEQQ1RKxBbtA0
qW02lovhM0Z05tgxg/I1vGi79yeph/yyEWNs82V3+uIsCW8N+s7ReYb4lxiwIAQ+gg05
kUU1ozU=
=1tU/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years
Does the GPL cover this?
by Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I would like to implement some Java-beans specific functionality
into a GTK project I am writing in C#. Basically, I want to make
interfaces/classes that mimic the functionality of Bean-specific
stuff like PropertyChangeListener, ActionListener etc.
It is really not much coding or complex at all, and I will _not_ be
looking at the Java sourcecode for this, and the only things I am
thinking of _copying_ are the names of the of the methods and
interfaces/classes in question.
However, would doing this cause me to have any obligations under
the GPL, ASL or other applicable license for the Java classes? I am
guessing functionality is not copyrightable, but what about names
of classes etc?
Sorry if this is not overly related to Fedora, but I have gotten
many good answers on this list, and I was hoping somebody could
help me out with this little concern.
Blessings,
Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuVXb4ACgkQQJM2U8zwlkakkgP/V0MkYaVJTivyVuMfyrSnGPeT5kxP
CUVPZ+cmLhyxZ9/Klrgzggrd5c8MfzmL1zm4EdNeVDM3kYty8buMX6oMFdXbg1ur7pQo
Pldrd22/IWldZq+hJfnmAUJxTpha78h9eO/V8NxgBHWI7h8LTNIQkwd6EndqioGUBU+l
IDQgvjE=
=8zRe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years
hunspell-ta and hunspell-or license tag issues in F-13
by Parag Nemade
Hi,
hunspell-ta and hunspell-or are the dictionary packages and derived
from its aspell dictionaries. I see licenses for them are as
Lang aspell hunspell
or GPLv2+ LGPLv2 (Upstream uses aspell wordlist and
released as hunspell-or)
ta GPL+ GPLv2+ (Upstream uses aspell wordlist, added
some more and released as hunspell-ta)
Can I get legal opinion on license tags? Are upstream of these packages
using correct licenses?
Thanks & Regards,
Parag.
14 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Indirect damages
by Christopher Svanefalk
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:37:11 +0100 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>On 03/01/2010 02:28 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote:
>> Are they the same as "Consequential Damages"?
>
>IANAL, but I'd say yes from what I'm seeing.
>
>~spot
Ok, thanks Spot!
14 years, 1 month
Indirect damages
by Christopher Svanefalk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
ok, I know this is probably not the most proper place to ask a
question like this, but I would really like to know what is meant
by "Indirect Damages" (such as are disclaimed in at least one FOSS
license I know of). Are they the same as "Consequential Damages"?
Im looking for, primarily, a definition pertaining to US Law.
This is of course not a request for legal advice by any stretch of
the imagination, I would just like to understand what the term
means.
Thanks!
Christopher Svanefalk
Student and Fedora user
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuMFVEACgkQQJM2U8zwlkYbdgP/dHLgMO/SknBoFPK6mjXst9fgORUB
wowCXO/hCvtlHFGjJrHssbEEMV07DcoIw4JaLzZi+UE3XXE8WanJHWSCbkyIj6BX17L3
c2let72PVcTlFPowxVwjbIQotvPanEyMWoPev6O239RAwt/wvY56QiCIN4Ng007iJi5Y
ZOQgLD0=
=64c1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years, 1 month