On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:15:38AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Don, 2003-06-12 um 23.21 schrieb Branden Robinson:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:01:54AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
to the form of the
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:54:17PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments?
One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
downstream from that person would have to keep the source in that form
and the binary together.
I think one
Hi,
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 05.41 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be realistic.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
one's changes, and to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Branden Robinson wrote:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works written by others.
... The point is that my usage of your Free Software
On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining Free
Software.
The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to apply to
non-public-domain works in general.
I'd
1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
source code), if applicable, is a precondition for this.
3) The freedom to
* Anton Zinoviev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining Free
Software.
The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
one's own changes to Works written by others.
I think (though
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
one's own
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Hood wrote:
1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
source code), if applicable,
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Having to include a changelog entry describing my modifications and
(at minimum) that the original author didn't make the change is quite
a bit different from simply giving some code to a friend w/o telling
whether I even modified the code. One is
Nicolas Kratz said:
Hmmm... Wouldn't distributing the modified Free Work, even if it's only
distributed to B, require A to make available the modified Free
Work to third parties? Then one could start from there, and utterly
disregard Bs obfuscated version.
I'm pretty sure that is the case
I was mildly confused with Branden's response to my message, and I've
been asked by two other people privately what the conclusion of the
debate was, so I'll just summarise quickly here the discussion Branden
and myself had on IRC. I checked with Branden, and he's perfectly happy
with the summary
Greg Pomerantz said:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form.
Anyone downstream from that person would have to keep the source in
that form and the binary
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:32:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Branden Robinson wrote:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works
Hallo,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
D. J. Bernstein maintains a website with documentation texts but
because all these texts are not licensed under a DFSG-free license it
is not possible to convert these pages into
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
documentation and not about free works.
Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
Presumably, they care first and foremost about software.
It is
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
To remove confusion, could you please specify which license these
manuals or texts are under and link directly to them on DJB's
website?
There is no license.
Hrm. Well, that usually
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession
Hallo,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:16:49PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
Assuming the use fell under fair use, it would be legal. It's
definetly not legal for debian to distribute the man pages, but I
don't think it would be a big deal for users to use such a program.
What do you think about
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
What do you think about debian packages like daemontools-installer
which could use such a program to create the man pages and put them
into the resulting debian packages? As I understand this this is
quite ok because the user starts build-daemontools to
Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
downstream from that person would have
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
Such may or may not be considered part of the copyright
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works written by others.
I need to work on
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 20:10 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I
found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I
think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
already adequetely
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:01 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
product is a precondition for this.
[...]
Humans
(non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-)
Hmmm... sounds like you're required to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
... But B needn't disclose this offer; B could intentionally make
itself ineligible to transfer A's offer by conducting its own
distribution commercially; ...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under the terms of the GPL, B
is not
Debian, like everyone, would love a single unified license. But
that's not the problem per-se. The problem is that we want all the
licenses to be free by a single definition. That some of the licenses
will be incompatible with each other is a problem, but not one that
impacts freedom.
The
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:02:56 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
large part of original message excluded because it's not relevant to
my question
I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
There have
Are there any legal problems with using the Habeas Warrant Mark in open
source spam filters (specifically, SpamAssassin). I want to be certain
that it does not:
a) cause SpamAssassin fail to meet the DFSG (or OSD)
b) cause SpamAssassin other legal problems
If your objection is that Habeas
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
I have recently come to the conclusion that making a unified license
is the only reasonable course left. There was much talk on this
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 21:07 US/Eastern, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
a) cause SpamAssassin fail to meet the DFSG (or OSD)
Yep, certainly does. And, in principle Habeas must not be free to stand
a chance of working.
[ For example, they'd fall afoul of at least the discrimination on
fields
37 matches
Mail list logo
