anyone arguing against privacy but then agreeing to
furnish their banking details to the world. Some form of privacy is
therefore desirable, and I fail to see how it is desirable that it NOT
be the default.
--
Stephen Ryan
Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us:
http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:59, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
> rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
> in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
> it danced around
mstance
here or there or because a lawsuit against the violation would fail on a
legal technicality or "nobody will ever find out". I don't care if you
think they're "little white lies" or "nobody will ever find out" --
descending to that type of argument surrenders the moral high ground in
a spectacular fashion, and provides a mile-wide painted target for the
opponents of Freedom. DON'T GO THERE!
--
Stephen Ryan
Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us:
http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
lows me to give the source at the same
time as the binary and to have no further obligations to anyone -- and
this is precisely where Free Software has thrived; if every programmer
was also required to be a non-profit distributor, I don't think there
would be any code to be having pointless arg
w
that there may be an author worthy of such an exception. Everyone else
ought to remove the off-topic material, in the interest of improving the
readability of the main document.
--
Stephen Ryan
Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us:
http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 16:35, Don Armstrong wrote (quoting the GPL FAQ):
I think the key line is this:
> (You can use the legal terms to make another license but it won't be
> the GNU GPL.)
The legal terms are not copyrightable; this is the FSF admitting that,
in a very oblique way. I believe th
or) is the only honest thing to do. Everything else should
be modifiable to suit, or else it isn't truly Free.
I think it is up to those who would propose that the license texts be
DFSG-free as well to provide a proposed benefit that would be worth
exposing the project to $150,000 in li
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:25, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, you're not the only one with that impression. Personally, I'm ready
> > to killfille [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a bunch of trolls. The only reason I
> >
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 03:24, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be
> repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any
> other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want
> to drop FREE (it is written f
the GFDL is a very real limitation on the
improvements that can be made to this manual.
[2] The electronic kind.
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softwar
reedom should be standing in Redmond, WA
with a job application. I heard they're still hiring up there. Or
working for RedHat. Or Sun. Or somebody else like that.
What you have missed is that freedom is easily traded away, but only
gotten with blood, sweat, and tears. Those who have paid fo
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 10:22, MJ Ray wrote:
> Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the whole installation was under such a license. I'm now liable to
> > distribute the source code for an entire operating system to every
> > person who manages to obtain a
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
>
ve to offer the source for download through the
phone/PDA? If I run an email auto-responder service from behind a NAT
firewall, do I have to email the sources, too?
Personally, I doubt that any software so useful that it warrants letting
this particular camel's nose into the tent; I can see the rest of the
camel from here, and it's going to ruin the tent.
--
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the entire system
has to be under the GPL, because you can't even get it installed without
the use of dpkg.
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just an exercise in
ivory-tower masturbation.
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
o I'm weird.
[4] Yes, I know that the GFDL limits Cover Texts to some small amount,
significantly less than the 24 line spew from mkreiserfs, but I bet he
could get the whole thing in by having each contributor add a few
words from that spew as a cover text. Besides that, I don't intend to
pick on him particularly - anybody else's ego trip would be just as
ugly.
[5]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00455.html
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
tion that isn't completely lost by the
loss of freedom -- and if there is such a benefit, why doesn't it apply
to software as well?
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
er of "a few K of patch files". This is a matter of
tens to hundreds of MBs of *full source*. The GPL FAQ explicitly states
that pointers to "upstream URLs" are not a valid way of meeting the
license demands, and gives (good) reasons as to why patches and pointers
to other
ached to music. Do we
*really* want to call it "Free" when doing the equivalent of playing the
radio too close to customers violates the license?
Brett Glass[0] is starting to make sense to me. That is a truly
terrifying thought.
[0] Moderately well-known anti-GPL troll, often found on ZD-Net boards.
All other anti-GPL trolls are small and cute in comparison.
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
t of subscribing to
debian-legal, and not at all for the casual user, which just enforces
the erroneous thought that "Well, I can't program, so having the source
isn't any good to me anyway".
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
er network packets; I am sure that there are
other protocols that aren't quite as trivial as ping but still far less
than something we'd actually call an ASP that could be used as an
example as well).
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
xious attitude.
Back under the bridge with you!
*plonk*
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster." -- Nietzsche
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
found a bunch of hits that make it look like
the QPL is considered Free. If so, then why shouldn't jpgraph go into
main? The "commercial" clause is no more obnoxious than a
GPL/talk-to-me dual license, as it applies only in the case of
closed-source use.
What am I missing?
--
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
naries is the source that must be supplied, per 3a) or 3b).
IANAL, TINLA, etc.
--
Stephen RyanDebian GNU/Linux
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes at Dartmouth College
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
utside the US to replace all those inside the US, since (as others have
already observed) the act of uploading something to a site known to
export to an embargoed country could be interpreted as a knowing act of
export to that country, and therefore a chargeable offense under US
law. Your propo
rg/philosophy/bsd.html
I'm only going to suggest that one should consider pots and kettles
*very* carefully, in light of the above referenced commentary on the
*BSD license before finalizing the new GNU FDL. Eliminating Invariant
Sections as a permitted part of the FDL will also eliminate this
potential problem.
--
Stephen RyanDebian GNU/Linux
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College
commentary in the GNU technical documentation, it remains
political commentary and therefore off-topic in technical documentation.
Stephen Ryan
not a DD but I hope to be one someday when I grow up
29 matches
Mail list logo
