On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]:
And it leads me to another question for the list: when
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:35:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
Since our users and the DFSG
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Richard, Branden, and Co., I remain convinced that hot tempers are
getting in the way. Thus, I would like to make two requests:
1.
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11:15:35 -0400, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think we (Debian) would be nuts of deprive ourselves of Branden's
experience with licensing issues, and this issue in particular. RMS
doesn't read -legal and I'm quite sure other FSF readers won't read
personal
-Original Message-
From: Azhar Abdul-Quader
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:16 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: FW: quant job
To Whom It May Concern:
I am applying for the quantitative
position posted on Craigs List.
I feel that I am a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
The
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a country DFSG compliant?
Please cite the specific paragraph of the DFSG that has _anything_ to
do
On 2003-09-11 09:07:07 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A poll gives an overview of the feelings of people participating to
the poll. It does not at all prove that something is right or wrong.
It was stated GFDL is non-free even without invariant sections, due
to the anti-DMCA
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As I recall, the OPL has a thing equivalent to the GNU FDL's Cover
Texts. The GNU FDL's Cover Texts are immutable and unremovable, and
so are the OPL's.
What it
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 10:20]:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a country DFSG compliant?
Please cite the specific
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 10:20]:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a
Hi,
As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing
wrong with the spirit, the intention, of the GFDL.
As such, I've taken the
Disclaimer: I'm not a debian-developer, and consequently I have no
official standing in the Debian community. But I have been
participating on debian-legal for some time (at least since the
beginning of the GFDL discussion here a few years back), and am at
least somewhat familiar with the issues
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am hoping that I can deal with both organizations _as_
organizations.
I think this very premise is shaky. No one person can really
represent the Debian project when
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030910 21:50]:
I'm having some difficulty interpreting paragraph 3 of the GPL in this case,
due to the unusual situation of using the Windows executable on a
non-Windows platform. I'll include the paragraph from the GPL verbatim here
for reference:
|
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 01:20]:
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:03 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or
probably even punch cards, because that's not on a medium customarily
used for
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 01:50]:
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 18:06 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The (intended) GFDL, on the other hand, explicitly prohibits us from
distributing on certain things.
No, it doesn't. It explicitly prohibits us from using technical
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 02:05]:
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
The poll held recently made it very clear. Who has changed their
position since then?
I.
Former DFSG is not
On 2003-09-11, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am hoping that I can deal with both organizations _as_
organizations.
I think this very premise is shaky. No
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
What do you think: DFSG free?
It depends. If it is
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't
consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for
editing.
Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
Not really. The license simply
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 07:37:48PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 18:07 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:15:09PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits
distribution
on DRM media.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a
point.
Umm, vi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 07:04:43PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
allow me to directly
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:17:25PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
One of the claims that the LaTeX people made was that it wasn't all
that big of a burden. They acknowledged that it was annoying, but did
not consider it a fatal defect. Much like the FSF position on
invariant sections.
Well,
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 08:54:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:49:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The intention of the statement as I understood it is that all
binaries shipped must be buildable. Shipping source code that
doesn't build on Debian doesn't
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:18:14PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
| The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
| modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means
| all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:04:43 +0100, Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a
non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
allow me to
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 06:08:38PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Don't look now, but Creative Commons publishes somewhere around half a dozen
licenses :-) (Though some are pretty blatantly non-free)
(No ridiculously excessive
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of
debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following grin:
[...]
Looks good, but don't forget that that is only phase one.
Phase two involves a holistic reading of
Anthony DeRobertis schrieb/wrote:
I think the way that the GFDL currently attempts to prohibit DRM is
non-free. I can't think of a wording that would prohibit DRM and still
be free. However, I don't think DFSG 1 says DRM must be allowed.
DRM is incompatible with the goal of DFSG 1: It's just
Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption).
Or compression. There are mostly plain-text PDF files, but they are
quite unusual.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:36:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is Not an Emulator.) It may be worth asking the FSF. They have an
email address for license questions, but I have forgotten what it is.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's something along those lines, for sure.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:49:06AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
change the name of the files you modify and that's a direct problem
when using LaTeX.
Actually, one of the
If you want to CC licensing@ from a thread in (say) debian-legal, here's
what to do:
1. Mail only licensing@
2. Take the autoreply it gives you, and extract the [gnu.org #] bit
from the subject.
3. Put that bit in the subject of all mails CC'd to licensing@
This will prevent the creation of
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:48:26PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On 2003-09-11, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be useful for debian-legal to designate a point-man, as it
were, who could summarize discussions here and send the result to the
FSF? It would introduce quite a
- Maybe GNU should consider the option to provide its manuals
in two versions, one without philosophical/political/historical
texts, one as the current manuals.
I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but
rather as a potential problem. So
Then, a license allowing to freely distribute a software or a modified
version
of this software in binary form only is free, but with a practical
inconvenience.
If you interpret my statements by stretching the term practical
inconvenience to the point where it means nothing any
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not having source is a mere inconvenience; you can always decompile the
program, read the assembly, translate it back into C, etc. Not being
able to distribute the program is only an inconvenience; you can always
rewrite it from
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The invariant sections don't restrict your freedom to use the
technical material, verbatim or modified. They may cause practical
inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
issue is basically the same as the issue of the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Incompatibility of licenses does cause real obstacles to certain uses,
and it might be worth changing the GFDL to solve that problem, if it
can be done without big drawbacks. I'm going to think about this
question. But the same issue arises for
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:44:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GFDL is not compatible with *ANY* free software license.
How is this? Many non-copyleft licenses have no compatibility at all.
Most licenses don't have the compatibility requirements of the GPL that
forbid linking it with
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Maybe GNU should consider the option to provide its manuals
in two versions, one without philosophical/political/historical
texts, one as the current manuals.
I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an
46 matches
Mail list logo
