Discussions are ongoing on debian-kernel and debian-project with
intermittent Cc:s to debian-boot and debian-release. As usual, some people
are trying to allow binary-only executables for peripheral cards in main,
and other people are trying to move them to non-free. (No prizes for
guessing
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all a
heads up, you would be soon enough.
Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DFSG?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hello all,
Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to
the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the
source code available for three years (section 3).
The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's
not practical to
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
noncommercial. You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to
Daniel Carrera writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
noncommercial. You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... obligation to provide access to source code ...]
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all.
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of
Just put a note in the CD case with your address listed and say that
if you want the source code, send $4-5 for media and postage for a CD.
Also list the URL for source downloads from the website. Most probably
no one will ask you for it. If someone does, the GPL does not specify
a timeframe, so
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
noncommercial. You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
TC you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
Daniel Carrera writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
TC you want (nothing but
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Daniel Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Daniel It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it
from
Daniel him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
Daniel redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD)
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without TC.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
Now many CDs
Sarge takes 14 binaries and another 14 source...
Just 'offer' the source code by mail, and hopefully noone will ask for it.
Andrew
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without TC.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me...
Why? BTW, can you really read and comprehend legalese so
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or
Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?
You
Andrew Suffield wrote:
You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.
This is also the easiest
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,
The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
first sale, but the actual parameters of the
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
That's
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and put it on a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:36:42AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
just download the tar.gz file and
Benjamin A'Lee writes:
If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
Please stop feeding the troll. He lives in a land where words do not
mean what they
On 1/12/06, Benjamin A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
the law
Downloads aside for a moment and assuming that the GPL is a
bilateral contract
On 11 Jan 2006 20:27:49 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin A'Lee writes:
If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
Please stop feeding
27 matches
Mail list logo
