On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:55:32PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite
Steve Langasek said:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
I think the key there is _useful_ source. Obfuscated forms that can
not be turned back into useful source should not be allowed. Encypted
forms (if the recipient doesn't have the key) don't give useful
source.
Branden Robinson said:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Nick Phillips said:
I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather
something connected to the meaning of the source and the
achievability of the source's object.
Can have useful source
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Nick Phillips said:
I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather something
connected to the meaning of the source and the achievability of the
source's object.
Can have useful source recovered from it, in a form
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional modification, it's not much
of an issue there. A document
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree with this analysis at all. Translations from one natural
language to another are very lossy things. Ever read Shakespeare
without using the footnotes? How about Chaucer? Magnify that problem
by ten.
I can agree completely. My day
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:04:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
This is directly analogous, I
think, to the reason the GNU GPL doesn't have a clause forbidding
selling a work so licensed for $1 million. It's not necessary --
either no one will buy it, and the software might as well not
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
The basic idea being that even if something's widely available and
freely copiable, people aren't going to make massive numbers of
copies available at cost,
Isn't that basic idea contradicted by (to pick a completely random
example) Debian and its
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
Perhaps so, but in
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
There's no way to keep the sourced locked into an obfuscated
Nick Phillips said:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:06:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
If it's lossy, it can't be transformation; instead it is modfication.
Basically the forms can be judged according to their purpose. The source
form is the preferred form for making modifications. The object
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, intent is one of the hardest things to prove in court.
Intent is not hard to prove. Indeed, for almost all crimes, criminal
intent is an element of the crime, and it is regularly proved.
Thomas
Branden Robinson said:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few advantages:
* It's
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
There's no way to keep the sourced locked into an obfuscated
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:10:22PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Is indent(1) lossless?
No.
Should it be considered a transformation?
No.
It is certainly a trivial modified work.
Exactly. It's a modification, not a transformation.
The tr example (tr A-Z a-z source.c newsource.c) is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few advantages:
* It's technology-neutral. cpio vs. tar,
19 matches
Mail list logo
