On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Elizabeth Fong wrote:
Can someone look at http://bugs.debian.org/280864 please? It is
likely we'll need legal advice to proceed.
Quick summary of the situation:
2001 to 2002? - Dmitry Stogov wrote Turck-MMCache on contract to
Turcksoft St. Petersburg
2002-12-09 -
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service
routines were very heavily used.
That's interesting and true. But a lot is not all. I think in the
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Now, the French contributor can sneak something past debian-legal by
writing a license text that appears to grant permissions that the
contributor has no power to grant. Is that what you want?
Are you sure the location of the contributor is
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten,
harass
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:22AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
In some
On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The same (see above) point is not correct for political
speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
mode of operation and never was.
Political speech has been around for about two
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
Can you give me spme online Resources about it ?
In Germany,
On Fri, 2 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
England.
It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
to appear in a UK court should the copyright owner file suit against
them. Under UK law
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, D. Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out
On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
provision may make all license either illegal or unenforceable.
You
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Slipping between two definitions can be used to perform a
rhetorical trick: first get agreement that All X's are Y's under
the common definition of X, then change the definition of X and
carry over the earlier agreement using the new definition. For
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
- Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
doing so -- provide citations of a
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either.
1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either, but I forget
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Fedor Zuev wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Including
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
If you do likewise.
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
2)
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
In the
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 22/09/2003 ? 09:46, Glenn Maynard a ?crit :
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist,
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, art. 32.
That section is about the use of copyrighted materials for
education. It does not apply to anything else.
It is written in fiddly UK lawyerspeak, but it
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
That's not fair use. Paragraph 1 deals with citations
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
Par 2 says that the extent
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
licence according to FSD. Note that freedom for certain modified
versions (for example, even a work containing only the GNU Manifesto
invariant section) are effectively blocked, which triggers this
section of reasoning.
Do you really believe in this
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
way
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
more so you menyioned it below.
Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
trying to insult me.
I am
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 11:00:01PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
about cost (Invariant Sections is clearly non-free), but cares
I don't see what that has to do with cost.
Every
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
I have not yet got the impression that the
people you name are free beer zealots. Rather, they seem to be
freedom zealots if anything. Do you have
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Fedor Zuev wrote:
You already lost your killfile? My condolences.
Please note, one of differences between DFSG and FSD is that
latter does not require possiblity of arbitrary modification of
work, but only freedom to improve the program
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:41:52AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
about cost (Invariant Sections is clearly non-free), but cares
I don't see what that has to do with cost.
Every requirement
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those words are simply an indirect way of declining to recognize the
difference between loss of freedom and practical inconvenience.
That's not entirely true; I believe that debian-legal generally
makes this
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-12 17:43:49 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots does not
show, AFAIK, any clear-cut principles of freedom (and Robinson
explicitly declines that DFSG is a sufficient definition), any
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Assuming we're talking about USA jurisdictions: 17 USC 106 et seq.
enumerates rights reserved to copyright owners by default. Others
are conveyed automatically to any lawful recipient of a covered work
-- the
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It follows directly from contract law.
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
fact that a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant
there.]
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under
Sun RPC license
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Scott James Remnant wrote:
GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
The following two changes are made in this revision:
-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
and
-(which
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.
That's not what I said, and even if it were, there are other forms
of coercion
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
confused (which, as always
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le ven 29/08/2003 ? 10:42, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains
all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
Manifesto and continue to use it)
Maybe he will decide not to
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
originality in the work
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
applies to the
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
code? I don't see how that's relevant.
Sorry.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
It is, by definition[0], off-topic. Therefore, as any good editor[1]
will tell you, it would
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
Fedor Zuev said:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
of such code.
How does ls
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-27 05:52:57 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
existed copyright laws) makes this difference. [...]
Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at
all, I
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
...
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Documentation in not a software.
This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which
turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other
times documentation is embedded into source code
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
grounded on sweat-of-the-brow arguments. In actual fact, very little
IP law in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.
If I ridiculed US law
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open source.
So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
necessary.
It's true that many have gladly
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM users to receive unstripped version of manual
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
creator, that they reasonable
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
through a command
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Documentation in not a software.
This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which
turns software into documentation
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
Fedor Zuev wrote:
Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
from your desktop. Get real!
Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the
door
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
document.
Heh. And, according to
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
drawn to the condition You may not use technical measures to obstruct
or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute.
If make or were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
ensure that secure transport
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
software package can be modified before it will
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another
piece of documentation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
JMAre you trying to assert point 2 of the
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but
if I want to use
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There a VERY large difference, as black from white, between me deciding
not to repeat certain portions of Mr. Zuev's post[0] and sending people
to intimidate or kill him. The former is known, at least in the free
world, as free speech; the latter as
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
(perhaps through a command-line option) by every
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
What are you trying to rebute from my clause with it? It is more
or less my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a
hardcopy of it. Well, it is even standard practice. If you want to
actually modify it -- well, you may either OCR it, or you
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But here you talked not about discrimination against using
the copies of manual, but about discrimination against creating
specific types of derivative works. This may be reasonable, but
please note, that in _this_ sense, many of debian/main
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant
sections, it can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the
freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or
the freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for only
On Sat, 22 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
KD So, no text from a document licensed under the
KD GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an
KD encyclopedia, since the invariant section would now be part of
KD the main discussion
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KDWell, consider the following: Invariant sections are only
KDallowed to be material which does not talk about the main topic
KDof the work. However, encyclopedias are books which
KD(theoretically anyway) are about _everything_. All topics are
KDthe
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
sections _can_ be useful. Do not compare apples and pears[0]. On the
other hand is your anti-semetic message subject to penal law not
copyright law, at least here in Germany...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote:
JGJKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JGJKAccording FDL, You may not use technical measures to
JGJK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JGJK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MRFedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MROf course, you can claim that the very special definition of
MR software should and will be used for the sole purpose of the
MR interpretation of DFSG and Social Contract. [...]
MRYes! We use that very special
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is.
Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does
not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose.
(As it does not matter if all newspapers of
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JKAccording FDL, You may not use technical measures to
JK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no obligations
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
BRL* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030812 22:56]:
BRL Because everyting is software declarations does not really
BRL serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing
BRL freedom existed under the law.
BRLPlease note
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
WVOp wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov:
WV Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
WV FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
WVWhat if you'd want to create a custom Debian
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Software is a set of statements primarily intended to
perform some operations on the some set of input information in
order to bring about a certain result with this information.
Regardless of the way it does so.
Data is a set of statements
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
AD Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions
AD to
AD FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
AD encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which
AD forbids
AD
AD Is it? Are
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
MS My suggestion:
MS Software is a set of statements primarily intended to perform
MS some operations on the some set of input information in order to
MS bring about a certain result with this information. Regardless
MS of the way it does so.
MS
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KDBut let it be:
KD ---
KD
KD If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
KD _and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
KD information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
KD
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MRFedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MR On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR MRI have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
MR MRhttp://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
MR MRslow at reading German, if anyone else
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Petrisor Marian wrote:
PMWhat about a backup copy that you do for yourself, and for
PMvarious reasons you encrypt it?
According FDL, You may not use technical measures to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
_you_ _make_ _or_
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MROn 2003-08-13 15:26:46 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MRArticles 69c,69d completely redefine all conception of
MR exclusive rights (compare with articles 15-23 for generic
MR exclusive rights) - the heart of copyright regime. Hard to imagine
MR
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG program.
JG Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be
JG machine-readable that either contain
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MRI have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
MRhttp://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
MRslow at reading German, if anyone else wants to beat me to reading it.
http://www.copyrighter.ru/lite/germanapisp.htm
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
BREstablish first that the debian-legal team's current application
BRof the term software to all binary digits that get shipped in
BRDebian main is fallacious even if valid.
Not to say for everyone, but for me there is a very strong
reason.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
JGDocumentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JGhuman-readable regarding the operation of something such as a program.
JGPrograms consist of instructions primarily intended to be machine-readable
JGthat either contain machine language
93 matches
Mail list logo
