On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
The program is not encumbered by encryption laws, so it doesn't need to go
into non-US.
Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs providing the
necessary hooks to insert encryption software to be restricted
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
The program is not encumbered by encryption laws, so it doesn't need
to go
into non-US.
Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs providing
the
necessary
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
only want their work to be used
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
Of course, if you don't think the FSF is trustworthy, don't use
Version 2, or, at your option, any later version.
You make my point for me. Authors currently have the right to choose
how their work is used. It has come to my attention that the GPL is
Richard Stallman wrote:
The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
change published software--about respecting community and
cooperation. The way to respect a program, whoever has worked on it
so far, is to share it, improve it, and leave it better than you
found
Mike Bilow wrote:
Do not put too much emphasis on the fair use concept. It is
deliberately very vague, much like the concept of due process of law.
Exactly what it means in any particular situation can be very hard to pin
down without actually litigating the issue.
I would argue that
Paul Serice writes:
Do I read you and others correctly? Is the GPL a strategy designed to
basically reduce the time to zero between when an author publishes and
when the work falls into a GPL-like public domain? (Much like the use
of proprietary operating systems was a strategy when the GNU
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:41:10AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
Of course, if you don't think the FSF is trustworthy, don't use
Version 2, or, at your option, any later version.
You make my point for me. Authors currently have the right to choose
how their work is used. It has come to my
Mike Bilow wrote:
None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious
error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their
works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are
reading too much into the mental process behind the
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL,
[...]
Seems like the new maintainer fonecall wasn't very effective.
I don't think sanguine emotions about the GPL need be
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
change published software--about respecting community and
cooperation. The way to respect a program, whoever has worked on it
so far, is to share it,
Joseph Carter wrote:
Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL, as evidenced by
this thread. Your above sentiments show you openly hostile to free
software in general. If you have these opinions, why the hell did
you become a
Not only do I not recall saying that the full social consequences of the
GPL are obvious, I would not claim to know what they are. Many widely
respected people have expressed essentially opposite opinions on that.
This is the underlying issue in the dispute between the Free Software
camp
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 04:36:06PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
This is the underlying issue in the dispute between the Free Software
camp (Stallman) and the Open Source camp (Perens, Raymond).
I'm not sure Bruce Perens still has both feet in the Open Source camp. He
wrote an article some time
On 19-May-00, 15:27 (CDT), Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it was.
Well, its social reach extended further than I thought it did. It seems
to be about making sure that the community immediately has access to the
source code
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
Joseph Carter wrote:
Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL, as evidenced by
this thread.
You're doing it to. RMS's feelings on software freedom can be disagreed
with and even opposed
Mark Rafn wrote:
Some authors' wishes are dishonorable (in some opinions).
That's a good point. I'm not sympathetic when they try to abuse the
system.
If pressed, I will break. At some point, technology should fall
into the public domain or a GPL-like public domain even against an
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:27:34PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
I'm trying to understand this GPL thing to see if I can stay a Debian
developer in good conscience.
...
Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it
was. Well, its social reach extended further than I thought it
In debian.legal, you wrote:
I'm 99% sure that if the program doesn't contain encryption software
that it is okay. The Export Control Laws don't say anything about
hooks or the like. The demarcation line is whether or not it
contains encryption code. No encryption code, no problem -- hooks or
Julian == Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs
providing the necessary hooks to insert encryption software to
be restricted too.
Julian debian-legal, anyone know the answer to this one?
It *used* to be that hooks
20 matches
Mail list logo
