On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Dafydd Harries wrote:
Kanjidic's copyright file states (lines 208-212):
The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited
without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and
small groups for reference and research purposes is
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited
without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and
small groups for reference and research purposes is permitted, on
condition that acknowledgement of the
reopen 183860
tags 183860 moreinfo
thanks control
I've just send a message to RMS (cc'd to this bug) asking for
clarification.
I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
constitutes a work
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
constitutes a work based on [the Program] under Section 2 [of the
GPL], the manuals qualify.
Huh? Why do you think that
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
(specific) Texinfo interpreter?
Because that's not what we're doing. We're running texinfo.tex and
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
(specific) Texinfo interpreter?
Because that's not what we're doing. We're
Dafydd Harries wrote:
This appears to me to be a clear violation of policy.
The problem with SKIP codes has been fixed in kanjidic 2003.07.21-1.
See the changelog:
kanjidic (2003.07.21-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
* New license that allows modifications and free
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ludovic Drolez wrote:
Moreover, Jim Breen, the author of kanjidic, explained me that Jack
Halpern's SKIP copyright statement is a dead letter (and kanjidic
file has been used by freeware and shareware for a decade without
Jack Halpern making any noise about it). He'll also
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First, since the frequency can be construed as a fact, and therefore
is not copyrightable work of authorship, I'm not particularly
concerned by this. [If there is a jurisdiction which does construe
mere
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
particular kind of modification
17-Dec-03 07:26 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to
have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the
plugin is not preexisting.
Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST
certainly does not
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that The Work
described
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the
compilation is under Section 2 and the distribution is under
15 matches
Mail list logo
