Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many DVDs use css. To play these, a special library is needed to
read them, libdvdcss. Debian cannot distribute this library
It's at least a grey area, and most likely in more countries than just
Germany.
[...]
Note that I'm not happy with the
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
General question: is it true, that if distribution of the package XXX is
illegal in the country YYY, but legal in ZZZ, Debian will not include
XXX?
Shouldn't it be better (in theory), that if package XXX will be excluded from
servers in country
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If I choose to use an MP3 encoder in
this country without paying Frauenhofer and Thomson exorbitant fees, I'm
taking that risk. Any reasonable user should already know that libdvdcss
is dangerous, and if one doesn't
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:37:38PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: libdvdread3
Version: 0.9.4-3
Severity: critical
[...]
It
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated by the pairing, then it
must be a 'mere aggregation.'
So,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated by the
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
must have assembled the combination of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
must have assembled the combination of host+plugin in a persistent
form.
Yes, but he hasn't necessarily loaded the license incompatible plugin
while testing.
--
Måns Rullgård
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his
Hello,
[Please CC me, as i am not on debian-legal]
[Note, for people bored with the historical information provided here,
can go to the bottom and look at the incriminated licence directly, and
tell me if it can go into non-free or not]
Some time ago, a bit of non-free code was discovered in
On Dec 15, 2003, at 20:15, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
With the recent dicussion about improper package copyright files[1], I
would like to make sure the copyright files for the packages I maintain
are correct. I've decided to start with jabber-yahoo and have found
that my initial copyright file
On Dec 16, 2003, at 11:28, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You may well be right, I can't really claim to know. But you don't
seem
to be answering Brian's point.
I'm probably not :-( I've been quite short on time for the last few
days, so reading -legal has been put on the back-burner. I've
On Dec 11, 2003, at 16:31, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that the
_compilation_ must be original, not its parts.
Yep, that's right. In the US (other countries vary, I'm
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal document is more specific than an other, it
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
On Dec 12, 2003, at 20:50, Henning Makholm wrote:
That is not true. The program *being packaged* is allowed to write to
/etc as part of its normal operation. Apart form programs whose *task*
is to change things in /etc (visudo, update-*) the most well-known
cases are ifupdown and mount.
On Dec 15, 2003, at 17:40, Roger Leigh wrote:
However, there may well be copyright issues. Slink, Woody,
Potato and Bo etc. aren't exactly unique, but you would be hard
pushed to find another book with Manwë, Oromë, etc. in it.
You can't copyright a name. See:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:04:45PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 15, 2003, at 20:15, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
gaim-sha.c
* The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public
* License Version 1.1 (the License); you may not use this file
* except in compliance with the
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:18:32PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) the code is indeed non-free, and the copyright holder are the INRIA
(which is willing to relicence it, no problem there),
Not related to ocaml, but who at INRIA have you been
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) the code is indeed non-free, and the copyright holder are the INRIA
(which is willing to relicence it, no problem there),
Not related to ocaml, but who at INRIA have you been speaking with
about this? The Moscow ML runtime is also encumbered with
Dear Martin and Others:
I dislike the notion of software patents just as much as you do,
perhaps even more as they have been causing me a lot of grief with
respect to JasPer. I am very much in favor of software with no usage
restrictions at all. In an ideal world, JasPer would have no usage
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And why ask on -legal?
Um, excellent question. Certainly wasn't intended. My fingers must
have slipped while trimming the recipient line. After being on -legal
for ages and only recently subscribing to -devel it seems that
debian- carries a certain
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that The Work
described in sections 1 and 2 is the object
On 2003-12-16 19:37:28 + Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I ask is that you please
appreciate the world is far from ideal.
I can appreciate that, but can you please appreciate that your
software licence is far from ideal?
I have received a number of
rather unkind e-mail
On 2003-12-17 00:57:43 + Michael Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have received a number of
rather unkind e-mail from some members of the open-source community.
Please name them.
Please do not take offense. I am not criticizing the members of this
forum.
I am not taking offence, but I
Michael,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
I dislike the notion of software patents just as much as you do,
perhaps even more as they have been causing me a lot of grief with
respect to JasPer. I am very much in favor of software with no usage
restrictions at
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
Second, and more importantly, there is a critical legal issue involved
here. In fact, it is for this reason that all of the JasPer
Contributors agreed that the compliant-usage clause was necessary. The
troublesome issue is this:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
I can appreciate that, but can you please appreciate that your
software licence is far from ideal?
I do acknowledge that. This is why, in an ideal world, I would have
prefered to have a license without usage restrictions (because such a
license would
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:40:11PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Would Debian Aulë be appropriate?
Of the fabric of Earth had Aulë thought, to whom Ilúvatar had given
skill and knowledge scare less than to Melkor; but the delight and
pride of Aulë is in the deed of making, and in the thing
30 matches
Mail list logo
