On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 05:44:40PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Copyright law does not apply to copyright licenses the way it applies
to copyrightable works.
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
We had this
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually they are, if they wish to effectively maintain the copyright:
They can choose to enforce against some people and not others, and
have complete liberty. By failing to prosecute one violation
promptly, they could lose the right to prosecute that one
On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually they are, if they wish to effectively maintain the copyright:
They can choose to enforce against some people and not others, and
have complete liberty. By failing to prosecute one violation
promptly,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ironic, but yes, it's their right. Of course the DoJ hasn't exactly cared
about having willing plaintiffs for a few years now when it comes down to
criminal tacks: look at Adobe v Skylarov(sp?).
But this case would have nothing to do with any possible
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have. Try the Choral Public Domain License
(http://cpdl.snaptel.com/license.htm), which is essentially the GPL with
software replaced by music. Was constructing that licence a
copyright infringement?
Perhaps, but the FSF is not obligated to pursue it, are
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 08:47:07AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What part of Free Software don't you understand?
The second part, apparently. The Software part.
If we distribute it, it's software.
Arguably, (and rereading the social contract), yes. Thanks for
reminding me. However - this is
Please supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are some.
One case I recall involved a book of forms for wills. Despite these
being legal
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
It's a large chunk of text, that took
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are some.
One case I recall involved a book of forms for
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson
wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:06:22PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
If you're going to change a program, you need to/should change the
manual along with it.
I thought some more on this over breakfast, and yes, manuals should be
free in all cases, but I think that the GNU FDL is free enough even
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no
need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors
over the license of the license.
There's been several instances of GPL-ripoffs, e.g. people basing
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's been several instances of GPL-ripoffs, e.g. people basing
their own licenses on the GNU GPL, or was I dreaming that?
I've never seen a licence that includes a large
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it said that modifications were allowed, that could be
construed to mean that you could modify the license on a
GPLed work to something other than the GPL.
The real fear is that
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Also, you could, if you wanted, include the entire unmodified GPL and
add an introductory section that changes the meaning or what follows.
Like Guile does. That's the Right Way to Do it. Okay, I admit it, I
can't find any
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:04:50PM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
So my suggestion stands. It would be a good thing to have DFSG, DFAIG
(art/information) and DFDD (documentation). The DFAIG should allow
free verbatim distribution and freely 'changing formats', eg. svg to
png or dvi
Branden Robinson wrote:
What part of Free Software don't you understand?
If we distribute it, it's software.
If it's not software (or willing to be treated as such), it's not our
mission to distribute it.
Oh give me a break. Where was this argument in the past when we
discussed
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:16:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I guess these are all software then:
debian-guide - Text from: Debian GNU/Linux: Guide to Installation and Usage
dwarfs-debian-guide - Dwarf's guide to installing and using Debian GNU/Linux
lg-issue66 - Issue 66 of the
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:16:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I guess these are all software then:
debian-guide - Text from: Debian GNU/Linux: Guide to Installation and
Usage
dwarfs-debian-guide - Dwarf's guide to installing and using Debian
GNU/Linux
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:50:31 -0400
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson
wrote
Package: xfig
Version: 1:3.2.3.d-rel-2
Reading the original Release Notes on
ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/applications/drawing_tools/xfig/xfig.README.3.2.3d
I noticed the following sentence:
o New aircraft from Carlo Kopp in Examples directory. These may be
reproduced for educational and other
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
No real consensus on how much of the DFSG applies to data files (as
opposed to software that can be executed in some way) has ever been
reached or reported on debian-legal.
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's software.
If it's software, it has to be compliant with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines, or it can't be part of Debian.
Then start reporting bugs on packages. I'd
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:25:49AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's software.
If it's software, it has to be compliant with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines, or it
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's software.
Sorry, but the even the GPL itself (meaning the license text) isn't
DFSG-free, it's verbatim copying only.
Sunnanvind
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's software.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:32:47PM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
Sorry, but the even the GPL itself (meaning the license text) isn't
DFSG-free,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 05:44:40PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I think you're confused.
I know I am confused. I'm a very confused person, generally.
I don't think I am in this matter, though, albeit I might (or I
mightn't) be misinformed.
Copyright law does not apply to copyright licenses the
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
Functional work is a different story, like software. There,
modifications have to be allowed.
But for logos and licenses and manuals and political statements? Sure,
it'd be great to be able to make modified
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
Anyone is free to take the text of the GPL and modify it for their
own use -- in contexts where they own
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are
30 matches
Mail list logo
