On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:15:17 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is
good, but using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like
the Affero GPL.
... and despite its length, it does not even implement
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code.
No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
explicitly allows it.
Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license.
Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations.
Don't believe people who do not discuss
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
the work and the whole source.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL
library and
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work:
- You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL.
You are basing all of your reasoning on
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
there is a problem in wodim.
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author.
There is nothing like that in
See:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/121734
This does not seem to have been fixed in Debian, judging by the
orig.tar.gz shown as got from upstream at:
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/iceweasel
which is 42 MB as against Ubuntu's 34 MB seen at:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Apologies if this is the wrong place to report this. I'm reporting this
here only because I thought this is also the place to bring to notice legal
problems in Debian. Should I file a Debian bug?
Have you checked the contents
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:32:08AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
the first is that packages in main should not have any dependencies
on non-free software. however, debian policy is not entirely clear
on the issue. section 2.2.1 says ... the packages in main must not
require a package outside
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
See:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/121734
This does not seem to have been fixed in Debian, judging by the orig.tar.gz
shown as got from upstream at:
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/iceweasel
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
So make sure that wodim prints something like:
This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original
software
and it mets the rules.
Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements like this
Hello. Please inform me kindly if this Q is OT for this list.
I have a question. I will illustrate it by means of a highly simple
programming situation.
Please look at the following images (each is only 6 KB) to get a
syntax-highlighted program.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL
code.
No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
explicitly allows it.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation
of the Author's work.
You seem to missinterpret the GPL.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
So make sure that wodim prints something like:
This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original
software
and it mets the rules.
Sorry, but we are
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
So make sure that wodim prints something like:
This program is known to have bugs that are not present in
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
So make sure that wodim prints something like:
This program is
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andreas Metzler:
I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not
inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+
both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this?
You should ask the GNUTLS folks. I'm sure they will
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I
On Saturday 10 November 2007 08:48:22 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
My question is whether anyone among X, Y and Z in any of the below two
situations is guilty of copyright infringement as a result of not
following license conditions?
SITUATION #1:
1. X creates 01-noqt-nothirdvar.cpp and
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
there is a problem in wodim.
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author.
Oliver Vivell wrote:
And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that everybody
understands them, so don't use Urheberrecht but the english term
Intellectual property rights.
_Urheberrecht_ is the German word for copyright, but it is more
accurately translated as author's
Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
judge whether all other opinions beside yours are wrong.
It is bad to see that nobody who recently answered to
On Saturday 10 November 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
judge whether all other opinions beside yours are wrong.
It
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
judge whether
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
This is not really the case.
As long as you change the license
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:01:48PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
This is where the concept of moral rights comes from. US copyright
law doesn't recognize moral rights (except for some limited cases
like sculptures) but European author's rights are strong on
moral rights.
Regardless of
John Halton wrote:
PAY ME $25,000 AND I'LL LET YOU DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE FROM A
PASSWORD-PROTECTED AREA OF THIS SITE.
just as easily be read as meaning our headquarters in northern
Scotland.
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked
with carets.
When you make
32 matches
Mail list logo
