On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:51, Jakob Bohm wrote:
I don't know, but if there are not, and a lot of people start
using such licenses, the big media companies are likely to get
their supporters in government to enact an amendment stating
that just because the copyright holders of *some* works
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:51:31AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:47:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Is there any DMCA-like laws anywhere that say that a copyright
holder can *not* authorize other people to access his work?
I don't know, but if there are not, and
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the
recipient and all third parties.
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties
in possession of the Document the authority to gain
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:47:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think it is counterintuitive to read the directly or
indirectly as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the
recipient and all third parties.
^
in posesion of the (modified) software,
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it.
Oh. Somewhat far out, I think. But nevertheless...
Then it should be harmless enough to ensure that the license can't be
interpreted this way.
But I don't think the
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think it is counterintuitive to read the directly or
indirectly as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary,
it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the
recipient and all third parties.
in posesion of the (modified) software, right?
I'm not sure that is strictly necessary. Even if
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Surely, if I encode the Document, and it turns up in my encoding at
your computer a year later, it must be either because I gave you a
copy (in which case you get the rights) or
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oops, I confused myself. This phrase all third parties that receive
copies indirectly through the recipient is still there.
Could you state again what problem you have with that
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient
Oops,
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
to make GFDL docs
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain
access to the work by
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient
Oops, I confused myself. This phrase all third parties
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Strike it and replace it with:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:35:24PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The status quo is not tolerable, and if the comments are not published
by the FSF soon, it seems to me that someone else should take the task
upon them of publishing them.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* What's wrong with the GFDL and what problems can it cause
Interesting link via google:
The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL
without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:39:16PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
I would ask that, *especially* if Debian formalizes my metaphor or
builds upon it in any way, that the FSF not change its definition of
Free Software without running it by us.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, considering the comments made and the FSF's lack of response [0],
it's probably time for us to do a brief and simple GNU FDL Considered
Harmful write up [1],
As part of this, I think we should write a boilerplate rider that
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:34:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, considering the comments made and the FSF's lack of response [0],
it's probably time for us to do a brief and simple GNU FDL Considered
Harmful write up [1],
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 02:55:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You'd want to be careful about ending up with YA documentation license
that's mutually incompatible with everything else out there. Or at least,
very upfront about it, so people can avoid it.
I've been making bellicose statements
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* How the GFDL could be fixed
It's my intention that the Debian rider language would pretty much
encapsulate this goal.
Perhaps I'm being a spoilsport, but I feel that the GFDL is
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:39:53AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a spoilsport, but I feel that the GFDL is just
fatally flawed. It tries to enumerate transparent and opaque formats,
when transparency and opaqueness are really context dependent. It has
all of the crap with
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
comment period, and then the
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I say this with great sadness, but there appears to be a difference
in RMS's and the Debian Project's interpretation of freedom 3.
The freedom to improve the
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
FSF's definition of Free Software -- Constitution
Debian Free Software Guidelines-- statutory law
debian-legal discussions -- case law
So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, attempt to
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so enthusiastically; it makes fear that
I am unwittingly aiding
30 matches
Mail list logo
