Hi!
I wrote about this problem in [EMAIL PROTECTED] The answer (by
Markus Kuhn) was:
This was discussed before. None of the commercial font suppliers
considers pixel fonts to be of any commercial interest whatsoever today,
therefore the problem you outline remains a purely theoretical
Hello,
This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
Note from upstream author:
##
#I M P O R T A N TN O T E#
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hello,
This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
Note from upstream author:
##
#I M P O R T A N TN O T E
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
HTML and JavaScript within. Therefore, I suspect most people
using PHP-Nuke are in violation of Section 0 of its license.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hello,
This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
Note from upstream author:
##
#I M P O R T A N TN O T E
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
This is not shown in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright! Where does this come
from?
Err, not read the GPL
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug
Are you sure that there are any countries which do not forbid removing
copyright notices?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug (all
pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it), against
which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned some years ago.
Perhaps, but the Zope license required it explicitely,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:03:03PM +, James Troup wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
This is not shown in
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think this is not good for the same reason as the BSD advertising clause.
Well, it's *worse* than the BSD advertising clause, and since the DFSG
implicitly permits the BSD advertising clause, this analogy isn't
persuasive.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug (all
pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it), against
which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I'm not sure this really makes sense. We have seen other software
licensed with GPL with exceptions before -- such as software that
uses OpenSSL. I think this is a case of the copyright holder using
GPL with exceptions.
We do have some software that
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
restrictions.
Good point. I wonder, though, if the difference is important?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug
Are you sure that there are any countries which do not forbid removing
copyright notices?
I've always regarded it as a
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
issue with my quick list searching. I'm just saying I don't like the BSD
advertising
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
restrictions.
Good point. I wonder, though, if
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
restrictions.
Good point. I
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug (all
pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it), against
which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:09:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug (all
pages rendered with Zope have to have our little
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
However, I would like to play devil's advocate for a second:
A person could consider a Web application to be a program that
reads commands interactively in the same sense that a
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:19:34AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Could the maintainer of PHP-Nuke please have a little chat with
the author?
I think that the author is unlikely to relent on this, given
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
issue with my quick
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
exceptions grant additional
[replying to two messages at once]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll note that the GNU GPL's 2c), for instance, does not mandate that
the announcement of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer be
placed into files output or processed by the software, which is what
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that PHPNuke actually is applying (2)(c) correctly. The output
of PHPNuke is derived from the HTML and Javascript input. In the case
of Javascript in separate files, it's not even derived -- it's the
original. It's clear that PHPNuke reads
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
One way in which it differs from the Zope web bug, is that the GPL
clause only applies when you want to distribute your changes. Which
would mean Debian's required to include the code in its packages, but
users are free to remove it themselves, if they
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:56, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner
(Is it on purpose that you didn't cc to the list?)
No, it was sheer idiocy. Fixed.
2(c) says that the notice must be displayed when started running for
such interactive use in the most ordinary way. That would
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
2(c) says that the notice must be displayed when started running for
such interactive use in the most ordinary way. That would be on the
front page of the website (http://www.example.org/), but not
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:07:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
We do have some software that is
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
Joe Drew wrote:
Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're
Don Armstrong writes:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME
distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream
eventually supplies DFSG-free software.
You're asking the wrong people then,
Don Armstrong writes:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
Because they don't think it's fair for you to make changes that you've
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Armstrong writes:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
Because they don't think
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Armstrong writes:
This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
introducing this onerous term into their licenses is
34 matches
Mail list logo
