* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
as presently written, we are obliged to apply
* Achim Bohnet:
[please cc me, i'm not subscribed to d-l]
Hi,
new digikamimageplugin 0.7.3 release
a) contains now a header file that uses the CeCILL license.
http://www.cecill.info/index.en.html
http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
b) this header file is included in
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf(Hello\n);
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
* Francesco Poli:
But if you propose to disable DFSG#2 for non-programs, you have to
propose a criterion to tell programs and non-programs apart.
IOW, you must be able to tell when DFSG#2 must be applied and when it
may be ignored...
It's enough if we are sufficiently confident that such a
* Andreas Barth:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as software.
I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as
declared goal to replace any such places with the real meaning, and
this was not touched, it has to be
* Steve McIntyre:
Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
software means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of program
too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
program are unclear and should say software, then propose a GR to
get them
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve McIntyre:
Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
software means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of program
too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
program are
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Andreas Barth:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as software.
I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as
declared goal to replace any such places with the real meaning, and
this was not
* Steve McIntyre:
The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
real problem here (beyond the invariant section business) -- the GNU
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050728 16:19]:
* Steve McIntyre:
The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
real problem
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve McIntyre:
The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
real
* Andreas Barth:
I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you
want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes.
Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
assumption under which debian-legal operates in general?
Actually, it is not
* Steve McIntyre:
Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? With a few
practical exceptions, of course (license texts, public key
certificates, etc.), but the general rule seems to be followed.
What?
I'm astounded by
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anyway, the person who recombines the film and track, in the
case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
program, and copyrights protection do not apply at that moment, as
per 17USC.
You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is
On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction.
The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve problems
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
any way the user sees appropriate; section 2
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf(Hello\n);
return 0;
}
On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed.
Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to
** Raul Miller ::
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Raul Miller writes:
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
any way the user sees
** Michael Poole ::
Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-l
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
violating the GPL.
Violating the GPL doesn't mean anything. The GPL is not a statute.
It's just an offer of contract. The only way to enforce it is for a
party with
On 7/28/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is Contributory Infringement, which
carries a full array of jail terms. SCOTUS just upheld it against
Grokster a few weeks ago. Providing an automated system for
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the stop
distribution penalty was not used in part because Progress
didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release
their
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:20:18 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
Personally, I think that we can make this distinction, but actually,
we shouldn't, at least for technical documentation which describes how
a program works. If we change the program, we sometimes need to
change the documentation. If
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:04:34 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely
available? Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting
from it, and having a succint, linkable statement of
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from
a foggy definition of program to a more dogmatic everything we
ship
On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean freely available?
Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the mail,
with no obligation of confidentiality as such; the copy is yours, feel
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you
want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
to change the wording
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm arguing with your interpretation of program to mean anything you
want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
certainly _is_ new, and is
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[argument of program vs. software]
If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The
point
32 matches
Mail list logo
