Adam Warner wrote:
What was a substantial freedom as part of GNU philosophy--the freedom
to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play,
without even mentioning that they exist--is now only useful to hermits
and leeches. Anyone contributing by providing an electronic
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is the part of a computer that's not
hardware. Another
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are
for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software
contains
the set of documentation.
I'd like to know
MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free [...]
Please note that they
Andrew Suffield wrote:
We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
If one cannot coherently and usefully *describe* the
On Friday 31 January 2003 22:13, Paul Hampson wrote:
To me a right (as compared to a privelege) is something you can do,
and no-one can take that away from you.
This would make a persons's set of rights empty.
Lynn
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:47, Russell Nelson wrote:
Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or
don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you
give up on some things in order to get something else you want more.
Yes! Now you have
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of moral
rights that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
with these, but they are not the same thing
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:02, Russell Nelson wrote:
And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language
of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an
elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and
may decide anything they
On Monday 07 October 2002 13:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Auke Jilderda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- First, the boundaries of the GPL are unclear. Exactly what does the
term derived work mean, does the license propagate across static
linking, dynamic linking, IPC, or even socket
On Sunday 21 July 2002 22:59, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the
problem with
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license
and/or
That's sort of like
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them
(or so I thought). If you want your
What's the status of Ocaml? I noticed parts of it were under GPL and
other parts not. Can I write software in Ocaml without requiring users
get non-free software to compile it?
Lynn
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, SSchott wrote:
This is very general. Copyright law can preempt licensing agreements-- for
example licensing provisions prohibiting decompiliation and reverse
engineering have been found to be in violation of the fair use provision
of the Copyright Act. (Sega v. Accolade
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, David Starner wrote:
The authors position, as explained by them in a long flamewar on
gnu.misc.discuss, was that they didn't want anyone ripping off
their code to improve stuff like Java and other non functional
programming languages, which is why they were going to stay
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:13:44PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:36:05PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Moving to Debian-Legal...
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:11:49PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote:
I've been having a conversation
Speaking of GPL v3, does anyone know the status of it? My
understanding is that it's being worked on.
One of the specific things I'm wondering about is GPL'ed software in
embedded devices. While manufacturers of such devices currently have to
provide source for any GPL'ed code embedded in
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
Chris Lawrence wrote:
If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
rather than continue to make the generalized statements It just isn't so or
The GPL requires
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
derivatives) under the GPL or practically any license (as long as it
preserves
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C
can do certain
things, B can't change what A has permitted C to do. But in the event this
is not clear
enough, XFree code specifically says you can
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me that in all
cases a function call is equivalent to a footnote - footnotes you don't need
to see to understand the text, a non-standard API I
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Do I have really to relicense the whole even if the original code have had
nothing to do in the past with my Readline additions? One could ponder that
only _my_ part of the work is based on Readline. I will really appreciate
if someone could
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, David Johnson wrote:
Oh, but it does! I'm sorry that I can't quote the relevant law to you,
not being a lawyer or anything. But there have been court cases in the
past that have determined that APIs cannot be copyrighted. A footnote
containing a chapter or page reference is
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Richard Makin wrote:
Is anyone working on programs to decompress/install programs without
forcing the installer to agree to a click-wrap EULA?
First of all, in many countries, including Norway, reverse engineering is
explicitly permitted by law _even_ if EULA
On 16 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
The license contained in the copy is just bits. Can bits make legal
promises in American law? They certainly can't over here.
In effect, the license contained in the copy is a recording of a
statement the author made once in the past. Since that
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have an owner who authored the software and holds the copypright
for something distributed under GPL, and a copier who has made a
copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling the
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Dec 13, Henning Makholm wrote:
I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without
getting something tangible (a consideration) in return cannot be
legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license
to be revoked
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
Note that you won't be able to include any GPLed software in your
distribution if you want to make restrictions about how and when
other people or corporations are allowed to redistribute it.
Where does the GPL say
I thought this notice is important for free software developers (in
particular) to be aware of. My hope is that this clause of the DMCA will
be struck down by the courts as overreaching the powers of Congress, but
we should be letting the library of congress know there are legitimate
fair use
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Erich Forler wrote:
If you're referring to the following section,
All right, title and interest in the Software Programs, including source
code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by
Corel Corporation, Corel Corporation Limited, and others
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
to adults, or only people with red hair, that is ok. Asking people to
agree that they will use the software only in accord with the license
is ok, provided the license is a free software license.
If the license is a free software license, then it
34 matches
Mail list logo
