On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Please read what the FSF has to say about this:
When should a section be invariant? First of all, keep in mind that a
section that treats technical material cannot be invariant. Only a
secondary section can be
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:04:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
It looks to me like a possible case of being free but not
distributable by Debian: because anyone distributing it would have to
make people agree to the EULA, which would mean you couldn't just put
it on an ftp server or
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
I throw away the source CD and then start selling the binary discs
from my retail store. My poor customers will be left with binaries and
no way to get source, much contrary to the intentions behind
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:32:21PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We
want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the
software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb
files for pcb, .sch files for gschem, and .asm files for the PIC
firmware. What
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml.
The OpenIPCore license is a more of a copyleft, so you'll
Many of you are already aware (me included but I have not participated/read all
the relevant threads) that this horse might have been beaten to death in as many
threads over the years. However there is not a single place that summarises all
this information and shows the official (Debian's as
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
Could you do us all a favour and save our time by not dragging
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
being a excellent source of statistical information about the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Your broad definition of technical measures to obstruct or control
the reading or further copying of the copies would prevent me from
keeping a GFDL-licensed work locked in my house: the doors and locks
obstruct reading by
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Ah. I see your confusion now. You really can't legally use the
software without accepting the license, but the GPL imposes no
conditions upon your acceptance of paragraph 0 which grants you usage
rights. You could call this
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
*less* rights that normally given by copyright
The rights normally given by copyright are virtually nil; you
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:15:42AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
- It's been argued that this particular text is useful as data employed
by programs
So all you need is to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:20:59AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
- No one's gotten worked up enough about having *one* such text in the
archive to request its removal. Abusing this precedent by uploading
dozens of books to the archive is much more likely to result in a
response.
You
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
That's
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 14:41, Herbert Xu wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sentence existed within the context of a paragraph that explained
why the particular text of the bible was important (which is, IMO, the
reason that there was such a program designed around it and not some
other book). If someone wants to adapt a
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:52:29AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
being a excellent source of statistical information about the languages
it has been translated into, is often used as a reference book, like an
encyclopedia
On Wednesday 04 December 2002 06:28 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
After interesting discussion on and off debian-legal, I'm now down to a
choice of one hardware license for everything except the firmware which
will be GPL'd. The hardware license is probably the OHGPL
distributing documentation that does _not_ apply to documentation? Sample:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Actually, you can turn a gutenberg text into a free text merely by
stripping the gutenberg prefix.
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:22, Herbert Xu wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If, on the other hand, Debian developers don't have the common sense to
realize what would be useful with such a program and what isn't, then
I'll support removing it. But I'd like to give the project
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Because people might
On [03/12/02 17:12], Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:12:50PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
So Michael (and neither I ;-) wouldn't mind changing the current
license text to something else to keep the code in public domain.
*Software in the public domain does not require a
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:54:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels
On Thursday 05 December 2002 02:52 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Advocating a policy of don't upload every piece of data that exists is
not censorship, it's common sense. Yes, I think it would be cool if I
could do 'apt-get install alice-in-wonderland'. I also think it would be
a waste of resources
26 matches
Mail list logo
