On Wednesday 13 April 2005 10:13 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 01:22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía:
A: The DFSG is a set of minimum criteria that are taken into account
when
deciding if a particular copyright license is free or not.
I would prefer if a particular /work/ is free or not.
Actually, it would be a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:15:25AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Perhaps it's better avoiding recommending trademarks or otherwise we
should be prepared to see more and more Mozilla-like mess in the
future... :-(
Mmmm, you are right. I'll delete the comment about trademark laws (will
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 09:37:12 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía:
It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions,
copyright. Although not the part of copyright law that is related to
licensing; the right to not have things misattributed to you cannot be
waived,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:03:06AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
And that's why don't use the name «apache» or don't misattribute me
clauses in copyright licenses are stupid: because then I might create a
completely new work called «apache» or attributed to that author without
contravening the
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:14 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Q: The ability to keep certain parts of a document is essential for some
kinds of document. For example, RFC or other standards documents should not
be modifiable. Or a piece may contain the author's opinion on something, and
nobody
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía:
Probably another point worth making is that being in Debian or being
DFSG-free is not equivalent to being good or being righteous.
[...]
Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the
documentation
David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was
to
This is a comment on version 4 of
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
About debian-legal:
I feel that this would benefit from making it clear who can make
binding decisions on licensing. I suggest:
The decision-makers are the ftpmasters (who are responsible
for archive maintenance)
Correction/clarification, after noticing a context problem:
Anti-DRM clause - I think this is fine.
I mean: I think that section of the summary is fine.
[...] I would also find non-opensource.org
editions of the BSD and MIT licences.
s/find/prefer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Last Chance...
This arrangement will only be offered to you one last time.
We'd like to thank you again for your inquiry last year, we have been just been
advised that two private lenders are interested in offering you a deal.
Remember, for this special offer past credit history is not a
Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset
of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do:
Append at the end:
- Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with
your proposal, and feel you have enough support...
- Propose a
Andrew Suffield wrote:
It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions,
copyright.
That's really not that weird; the US is one of those jurisdictiosn, for
example (though only for some works, oddly enough). Sec. 106a.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:21:42PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
It is enforcable and is called a rolling contract. Seminal case is ProCD,
Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circut, 1996).
That
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:55:07 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis escribía:
Append at the end:
- Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with
- Propose a General Resolution to amend the Social Contract and convince
Oh, yes. I thought it looked too easy ;-)
--
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your kernel
module is most
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0300, Humberto Massa
wrote:
Then all the people who think that creating a binary
kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence
can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
up with them.
I took. Google my
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your
kernel
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
24 hours have passed, and this is the text of the current revision.
Additions, removals, rewordings, criticism, suggestions are welcomed and
requested. The latest revision is always available (minus network hiccups)
at http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ
When the text is
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices,
But are they?
copyright
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 11:46:36 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
Another example is incorporating documentation into a program, to be
displayed at run time.
Included.
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:47:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I would also find non-opensource.org
editions of the BSD and MIT licences.
s/find/prefer/
One thing we can do is that I can amass as many links as I can to the
BSD and MIT licenses, and then hold them up to you one at a time
(Resending this since my Cc to debial-legal got lost the first time)
A fair while ago I consulted debian-legal on the public domain license
and got the polite reply from Glenn Maynard stating that problems
might exist with it not disclaiming warranty.
Further discussion with upstream created
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
About Creative Commons:
I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
I do not feel qualified to write it.
I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary.
If you can dig up some information, I'll
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the literary
Martin Samuelsson wrote:
(Resending this since my Cc to debial-legal got lost the first time)
A fair while ago I consulted debian-legal on the public domain license
and got the polite reply from Glenn Maynard stating that problems
might exist with it not disclaiming warranty.
Further discussion
Martin Samuelsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Resending this since my Cc to debial-legal got lost the first time)
A fair while ago I consulted debian-legal on the public domain license
and got the polite reply from Glenn Maynard stating that problems
might exist with it not disclaiming
David Schwartz wrote:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be
linked together is not protected by copyright:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote:
Or, y'know, you could just go out and find the URL that works for you,
and send it to me.
Sarcasm isn't good for you.
BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
About Creative Commons:
I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
I do not feel qualified to write it.
I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's
I have added this to the FAQ:
Q: If the DFSG are to be applied to documents as well as to programs, why is
the text of the GPL included in Debian, if it says that it cannot be
modified at all?
A: It is included because this text contains the terms under which many
components of a Debian system
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:54:57 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Also, authors of programs deserve to be credited as well, and similar
restrictions have already considered non-free.
s/have already/have already been/
Right?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:02:36AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
So am I (altough I *am* a para, after all). This does not
preclude him from being right, does it?
Nope, as I mentioned. You just seemed to put special weight on his
opinion on the topic.
Now, it's possible that they're wrong;
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:52AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
Um, but they're *not* copyright notices, no more than this sentence is a
copyright notice. You can't claim that a pizza is a copyright notice
and
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:46:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Other examples include literate programming (a style of writing programs
in which what is really written is an essay about how a program works,
with code snippets) or
[MFT: set to -legal again, since once more, this really has nothing to
do with -devel.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John Hasler wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
piece of software.
That has nothing to do with creating a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:45:26PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Also, doxygen, for generating standalone documentation from inline docs.
I think this is a critical example, since it's specific, and a lot of
people actually use it (google for it to see just how many).
This is basically the same
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:47:56PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's a particularly compelling example because
it's a way of extracting documentation from a program and we're trying
to describe the opposite direction. But I guess I don't really object
to it either.
On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Now, it's possible that they're wrong; there's the obvious theory, for
example, that they've
42 matches
Mail list logo
