Re: one liner license, sufficient for DFSG?

2002-09-03 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Oliver Kurth quotation: --*snip*-- You can use this code in whatever way you want, as long as you don't try to claim you wrote it. --*snip*-- An interesting side-anecdote. I was talking to Bradley Kuhn last year sometime, and he says the FSF's folks had to laugh and agree

A bit of proposed license-begging etiquette.

2002-02-16 Thread Nick Moffitt
From: Mark Kilgard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] An an open bug against GLUT regarding the license? That is so Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day. So I realize that this message shows a lack of courtesy

Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft

2002-02-14 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation: I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation. For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and give the copies to my students, I must also give them machine-readable source. This is a major nuisance. Or a written

Re: Comments on GNU FDL 1.2 Draft

2002-02-12 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Branden Robinson quotation: [...] +formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include PostScript, +PDF, proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by +proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available,

Re: Comments on GNU FDL 1.2 Draft

2002-02-12 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Nick Moffitt quotation: I am disappointed that PostScript is considered an opaque format. It is a plain ASCII vector and text description format, though opaque bitmaps may be included. There exist Free utilities for the manipulation of EPS and PS images for those who do

Re: tomcat.deb is illegal in debian

2001-10-05 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Kevin A. Burton quotation: I assume you are saying that Tomcat/Apache and Debian become one program at this point? You don't even remember the original question, do you? No, to clarify to those whom you might confuse: Tomcat, apache, debian, all separate programs, and

Re: tomcat.deb is illegal in debian

2001-10-04 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Kevin A. Burton quotation: If the FSF site is running Debian/GNU linux with BSD software I don't see any problem... I believe you misunderstand the GPL. -- The only thing is certain: Russian petty computer hooligans are very slovenly, while FBI agents are very persistent in

Re: tomcat.deb is illegal in debian

2001-10-04 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Kevin A. Burton quotation: Nick Moffitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: begin Kevin A. Burton quotation: If the FSF site is running Debian/GNU linux with BSD software I don't see any problem... I believe you misunderstand the GPL. ... well you can't just make a statement

Re: Keyspan Firmware fun

2001-04-28 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Walter Landry quotation: I also don't see a (legal) problem with GPL programs that just move unfree data around. Otherwise cp would have serious use restrictions. However, cp doesn't contain within itself the unfree data. The keyspan drivers do. Debian distributes Apache,

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-13 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Craig Sanders quotation: for fun (and the chance to win an all expenses paid vacation to a maximum security cell block), the script could sign the notificiation message as Mr T. Errorist, Libya :-) I pity da foo'. -- You are not entitled to your opinions. 01234567 -

Re: orphaning fetchmail

2000-12-15 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin John Galt quotation: I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have had disagreements with in the past) is beyond your skills, but please don't remind me of it Perhaps your time would be

Re: Don't know if it can help...

2000-06-22 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Colin Watson quotation: that clause is there to allow GNU systems to be legally built on systems with proprietary C libraries and such, which was the situation before things like the Linux (and later GNU) C Library were written. The Linux libc up until version 5 was based on

Re: Mirror site (fwd)

2000-04-04 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation: Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the packages in non-free, so if you want to do it for any of those, you should take a look at the license first. (Because of

Re: KDE not in Debian?

2000-02-01 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Chris Lawrence quotation: There are no provisions of the XFree license that stop XFree code from being aggregated with GPLed code (the result being GPLed). The problem isn't aggregation. Any license that covers aggregation is in violation of DFSG 9. The problem is the

Re: [f.kunkel@ecomp.net: LOGO]

2000-01-05 Thread Nick Moffitt
Quoting Martin Schulze: Ah, interesting, I was informed a couple of days ago. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken the Crusoe Processor from Transmeta has a similar logo as well. Everybody and his dog as a spiral for a logo. Dreamcast, Sybase, you name it. Of course, if it's a

Re: FreeVeracity shipment.

2000-01-05 Thread Nick Moffitt
Quoting Yann Dirson: * The sentence `You also indicate your acceptance by retaining the Module on your computer for more than one day.' may have strange interactions with the download of (eg.) a precompiled binary package from debian.org/.../non-free/ - the downloader may get a large bunch of

On the GPL (was: webmin license)

1999-12-16 Thread Nick Moffitt
The reason why the GPL does not allow changes is because of the line or, at your option, any later version that appears in the standard notice when an author puts a work under the GPL. It is designed specifically to keep people from putting out a new version of the GPL that might then