Please supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are some.
One case I recall involved a book of forms for wills. Despite these
being legal
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
It's a large chunk of text, that took
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are some.
One case I recall involved a book of forms for
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson
wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion,
The conclusion so far on debian-legal is that the DFARS clause simply
annuls most of the extra rights that US copyright law ordinarily
grants to the government, and so is not discriminating *against* the
government.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't know for sure what the clause
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:06:22PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
If you're going to change a program, you need to/should change the
manual along with it.
I thought some more on this over breakfast, and yes, manuals should be
free in all cases, but I think that the GNU FDL is free enough even
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no
need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors
over the license of the license.
There's been several instances of GPL-ripoffs, e.g. people basing
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's been several instances of GPL-ripoffs, e.g. people basing
their own licenses on the GNU GPL, or was I dreaming that?
I've never seen a licence that includes a large
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it said that modifications were allowed, that could be
construed to mean that you could modify the license on a
GPLed work to something other than the GPL.
The real fear is that
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Also, you could, if you wanted, include the entire unmodified GPL and
add an introductory section that changes the meaning or what follows.
Like Guile does. That's the Right Way to Do it. Okay, I admit it, I
can't find any
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
The current license in full is:
Terminology
---
1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The `source code' refers to the machine-readable
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
The current license in full is:
Terminology
---
1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The `source
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:04:50PM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
So my suggestion stands. It would be a good thing to have DFSG, DFAIG
(art/information) and DFDD (documentation). The DFAIG should allow
free verbatim distribution and freely 'changing formats', eg. svg to
png or dvi
Branden Robinson wrote:
What part of Free Software don't you understand?
If we distribute it, it's software.
If it's not software (or willing to be treated as such), it's not our
mission to distribute it.
Oh give me a break. Where was this argument in the past when we
discussed
Since it seems rather unclear whether or not the GFDL and OPL
are DFSG-free with all permutations of their optional clauses,
is anyone suggesting that documentation in Debian be held
to a different standard than the DFSG?
On the other hand, if the various restrictions on modification
and printed
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:16:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I guess these are all software then:
debian-guide - Text from: Debian GNU/Linux: Guide to Installation and Usage
dwarfs-debian-guide - Dwarf's guide to installing and using Debian GNU/Linux
lg-issue66 - Issue 66 of the
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:16:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I guess these are all software then:
debian-guide - Text from: Debian GNU/Linux: Guide to Installation and
Usage
dwarfs-debian-guide - Dwarf's guide to installing and using Debian
GNU/Linux
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:50:31 -0400
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson
wrote:
A
18 matches
Mail list logo
