MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since
it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here.
Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM.
Note, I meant bug in
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright.
Given his surname, Mr. Spiridonov may come from a cultural background
where this
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:20:29PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
_MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise. To quote
part: The district court's grant of a summary judgment on MAI's claims of
copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a 'copying' for
purposes of copyright
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
The GPL takes away the freedom to redistribute works as closed sources
or unmodifiable. But it enforces the freedoms we want. It protects the
This is what I name deal. You claim to resist it, because your cow
will be disappointed.
--
Best regards, Sergey
Steve Langasek wrote:
the point of it. The sacred cow in question is the *DFSG*, a set of
principles that form the basis for this list's decisions about what is
considered free enough for inclusion in Debian. Your notion that the
It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 17:02, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
Ummm... stupid as it sounds, inflammable actually does mean roughly the
same thing as flammable. It's related to the verb to inflame.
Agreed. I just don't like it because it's an extra syllable and extra
two letters for no good reason. Sort
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain
Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'.
Yes; most proponents of the
less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be
Op do 14-08-2003, om 20:41 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of
software
As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree
with the
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 08:55 schreef Sergey V. Spiridonov:
gotten with blood, sweat, and tears. Those who have paid for their
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free.
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free.
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what
exactly you buy,
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 ás 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escribía:
we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended
meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG.
Well, in that context, software means everything you can store in a CD,
or
* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030814 21:42]:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
So while most jurisdictions may have different terms and some
may even state the term software in their laws (I guess most
will more likely take an more exact wording and only the
commentary refer to
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 13:57 schreef MJ Ray:
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 s 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escriba:
we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended
meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous
MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the
nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated?
1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible
software definitions it mean. Probably there was only one definition
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know; I meant 'clarifying it for people who read the text'. That means
adding a note before or after the text of the DFSG and/or the SC which
says something along the lines of...
I look forward to seeing your copy of the SC and DFSG where every word
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the
nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated?
1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible
software definitions it
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:39:28AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
However, just to correct Branden, being GPL-imcompatible does not make
the GFDL non-free.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I know it's not the case. A
consequence of writing mail in the small hours, I guess.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:44:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'.
Yes; most proponents of the
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since
it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here.
Cool! Until there is a
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:55:27AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
The problem is that GPL trades away some freedoms and some people
think it is inconsistent with Debian way.
Such people are free to join the NetBSD Project. Works licensed under
the GNU GPL have been embraced by the Debian
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what
exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so...
Thank
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
Imagine that you buy the right to relicense the work under a license of
your choosing. That would probably [depend] on the amount of money you
spend, [...] but it's very possible
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:42 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes
no difference
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 13:40 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JKHowever, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own
JKsystem, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put
it on
JKan encrypted filesystem.
Again. You demand from licensce to cure a
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no reason to think that Stallman is an idiot and can not
see these semi-trivial arguments, presented here against GFDL.
Contrary, in the past Stallman so many times was right, in very
pragmatical sense of right, whereas virtually everyone else was
On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 05:30 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it becomes
out of date.
No one so far has proposed any update. Some people has speculated that
maybe, just maybe there could be a change which would give
Fedor Zuev said:
For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
exist as separate exclusive rights, or almost useless. But for the
documentation,
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 19:02 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Let's say there is documentation and programs which intersects in
software. Any documentation which is software differs from any
program which is also software.
Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't matter. Debian is free
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MRFedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MROf course, you can claim that the very special definition of
MR software should and will be used for the sole purpose of the
MR interpretation of DFSG and Social Contract. [...]
MRYes! We use that very special
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi
Hello.
what's the legal status of inclusion of gif-creating applications in
debian? Is it ok to include it in main, contrib or non-free?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html says that the latest patent
expiry is 7 July
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is.
Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does
not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose.
(As it does not matter if all newspapers of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:31:28PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
So no, buying closed proprietary code and releasing it under the GPL
(e.g., Blender) does not give me any freedoms I didn't have before.
It merely gives me technical capabilities I hadn't had before.
You can't give me freedom.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 03:07:37AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
exist as separate exclusive rights, or
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
GIF-producing binaries that use only RLE (run length encoding) are not
patent-encumbered and may be placed in main.
However, generating a GIF that's compressed with RLE is a complete
waste of time. You might as well use BMP,
38 matches
Mail list logo
