On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:26:16PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
This is a case in which DFSG#3 very explicitly does not require derived
works to be distributable.
Agreed, though the convolutions you went through don't really have any
bearing on this point.
Of course it does. You claimed, as
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:23:40PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
In some countries (USA and Germany?) lists/databases are copyrightable,
even is single data is not! (phone book, games scores and statistics,...)
Not in the United States.
The controlling Supreme Court precedent is _Feist
I find no-advertising clauses like the following annoying:
Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright
holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the
sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
authorization.
They
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:43:24PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
3. If you wish to SELL your program or otherwise charge for its
distribution, and NOT include the source code and/or otherwise make it
non-freely
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
though LGPL is quite OLD, AFAICS there is no summary. To put it on the
web pages, I wrote one:
Debian-legal has concluded that the LGPL (Library Gnu Public License)
v2 and LGPL (Lesser Gnu Public License) v2.1 is a
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040512 11:10]:
Furthermore, it might be wise if we only attempt to adjudicate licenses
that are brought to us for consideration. I'm not sure we should go on
hunts for licenses to audit ourselves; to do so might damage the
impression of impartiality
Andreas Barth said on Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:15:06AM +0200,:
For me, I want the LGPL for a very simple reason on this web page:
It's quite often used (even so often that it is stored in
/usr/share/common-licenses), and I think that on our web page we
should not only have
Branden, in Brasil, the copyrights law (9610/98) makes databases
copyrighted, IF and only if their selection, organization, or the
disposition of their content is a novel intellectual creation. The CDDB,
for example, would not be covered by this definition (its selection,
organization and
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 12:31:47AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Of course it does. You claimed, as far as I can tell, that the GPL's
requirement that derived works be available under the GPL's terms is
a restriction on modification; I explained that this is explicitly
allowed by the latter
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is
copyrighted by default...
I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work
created by the U.S.
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is
an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is
copyrighted by default...
I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My copy of the DFSG does not say The license must allow all
modifications and derived works, ...
True, though it's hard to argue that was not actually the intended
meaning of what was written, I think. But granted, it is possible.
The issue I've been
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, some works under this license are free (for example,
one containing no credits but the copyright notice) and others are
non-free.
Wouldn't
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached
| this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD
| license, with both the compelled-advertising and no-advertising clauses
|
@ 11/05/2004 17:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
For example: you can't take code from gcc and code from metafont
and
combine them to build a new compiler -- at least not under the
current licenses of those programs.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 11/05/2004 18:23 : wrote Raul Miller :
People without proper palladium licenses would not have the rights
required by the gpl.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Why not?
Because palladium is a proprietary work, and it's more than just an OS.
@ 11/05/2004 19:52 : wrote Josh Triplett :
With GPLed works, for example, we have
the right to make any derived work we want, as long as it is under the
GPL, so the GPL satisfies DFSG3.
This is not technically correct. You can make any derived work you want,
EXCEPT: if it rips (C) notices,
@ 11/05/2004 20:32 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you make (with
very limited exceptions, such as the license blurb).
Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of the
support
@ 11/05/2004 20:55 : wrote Raul Miller :
Of course for copyright purposes it might be reasonable to say that the
painting and the notice together are contained in the work.
Similarly, I could hand you a book and tell you that I license to you
all my rights in that book under the terms of
@ 12/05/2004 00:02 : wrote Raul Miller :
I don't think you understand what copyright law allows you
to do in the absence of explicit permission.
As of USC 17, I don't, granted, by as of Leis 9.609/98 and 9.610/98
(Brazilian computer programs law, and author's rights law,
respectively, and
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
though LGPL is quite OLD, AFAICS there is no summary. To put it on the
web pages, I wrote one:
Debian-legal has concluded that the LGPL (Library Gnu Public License)
v2 and LGPL (Lesser Gnu Public License)
Massa's little trying-to-be-comprehensive study about the GPL.
(C) Humberto Massa 2004
This essay is hereby licensed to the reader, granting full rights of
modification and redistribution, provided (1) every derived work
maintain my copyright notice, (2) the original title is mentioned in
every
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
What about works by the CIA?
They're certainly not copyrighted...
Is copyright irrelevant to classified material?
Well, considering that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
material is either a misdemeanor or a felony, and according to my
Denis Hutton,`
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] will all0w you to receive
all the [EMAIL PROTECTED] that you 0rder with your remote contr0l,*
payperviews,XXX-movies,sp0rt events,special-events%,RND_SYB
http://www.8009hosting.com/cable/
koenigsberg ,crewmen
,ira ,yea .
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:32:59AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
You have at least half a point here. Derived works... are you implying
that if you integrate gcc better with Palladium you will make the
new-gcc a derived work of Palladium?
That is specifically the kind of work I wanted to talk
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you make (with
very limited exceptions, such as the license blurb).
@ 11/05/2004 20:32 : wrote Raul Miller :
Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of the
Raul Miller wrote:
(Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
you can't do is to
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
No. If I create any variation of the context, then the statement
immediately stops being true when placed in the variated context.
Except that you can easily create varied contexts where the
statement is
Raul Miller wrote:
(Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
you can't do is to
That also has several solutions -- become a part of the FSF, or provide
a disclaimer describing the issue.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:09:01AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
None of those solve the problem of making the license Free.
Correct -- at the other end of this thread were some
@ 12/05/2004 14:36 : wrote Raul Miller :
In Brazilian copyright+computer_programs law, you can
make as many copies as necessary to use some software.
That's specific to that jurisdiction, not a part of a license.
I said it in other post: Brazilian law is modelled closed on the Berne
Raul Miller wrote:
I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as
you
don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not
have);
If you can put appropriate copyright notices on it, sure. I'm not
sure how you're going to so this, but I'm sure you'll
That's specific to that jurisdiction, not a part of a license.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:11:20PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
I said it in other post: Brazilian law is modelled closed on the Berne
convention; possibly other jurisdictions have similar dispositions.
And to some degree, any
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files, in the
output from --version, etc.
Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
case, I need to find another example.
Unfortunately, I'm
Humberto Massa wrote:
1. I get gcc's sources;
1. (a) I have a valid license to it;
2. I get metafont sources;
2. (a) I also have a valid license to this;
-- up to this point, no license violation
3. I make modifications to gcc and to metafont, taking care of :
3. (a) not removing any
I have made some changes:
-- begin version 2
Massa's little trying-to-be-comprehensive study about the GPL.
© Humberto Massa 2004
This essay is hereby licensed to the reader, granting full rights of
modification and redistribution, provided every derived work of it does:
(1) maintain my
@ 12/05/2004 15:39 : wrote Raul Miller :
But some people have made claims that there are certain things we
require of the license (such as the complete absence of restrictions
on the right to create derivative works), regardless of the law.
hmmm. In this, I side with you.
Let's see,
@ 12/05/2004 15:44 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source
files, in the output from --version, etc.
Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In
that case, I need to
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not because the LGPL doesn't deserve a summary, but because it hasn't
been done right. The entire license needs to be posted and carefully
scrutinized.
Well, exactly in the LGPL case we don't need to scrutinize the entire
license. We can do with
@ 12/05/2004 16:12 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Humberto Massa wrote:
1. I get gcc's sources;
1. (a) I have a valid license to it;
2. I get metafont sources;
2. (a) I also have a valid license to this;
-- up to this point, no license violation
3. I make modifications to gcc and to metafont,
@ 12/05/2004 16:36 : wrote Humberto Massa :
metagcc.patch is a derived work of your metagcc, which is a derived work
of both gcc and metafont, so you cannot distribute metagcc.patch unless
it satisfies the terms of gcc's license and metafont's license.
Even if that is not the case, wouldn't
@ 12/05/2004 16:33 : wrote Henning Makholm :
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not because the LGPL doesn't deserve a summary, but because it hasn't
been done right. The entire license needs to be posted and carefully
scrutinized.
Well, exactly in the LGPL case we don't
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:21:53AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
There is nothing in the GPL that forbids functional modifications to
GCC to make it integrate better with the environment.
Treat palladium as a meta-syntactic variable standing for an
Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you
satisfy GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do
not have the right to put under GPL's terms.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
yeah, but as I did not redistribute
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
modified for you hypothetical environment would be non-distributable?
Because it
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 12/05/2004 16:12 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Humberto Massa wrote:
5. I will diff the sources from the resulting program with the
original sources
This diff is a derived work of your program and the original sources.
-- no license violation.
6. I will write a script
@ 12/05/2004 17:12 : wrote Henning Makholm :
No, but not necessary either. Versions of GCC have been done for
*many* proprietary operating systems. Many of these versions have been
AND operating environments, too. Like Java. Like DOS/GW or whatever
were those DOS 32 bit extenders. Like
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
In this case, therefore, it does not restrict my right to distribute
the hypothetical Palladium GCC, because I would give the recipient the
same rights as I got myself.
That runs into several difficulties.
One of which is that
Because it incorporates functionality implemented in proprietary
code.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It cannot do that if it is distributed with source and under the terms
of the GPL.
That's what I've been saying.
I still don't know what you are getting
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
modified for you hypothetical environment
* Henning Makholm:
Well, exactly in the LGPL case we don't need to scrutinize the entire
license. We can do with noticing that any work covered by the LGPL is
effectively dual-licensed with pure GPL, so the freedom of the former
follows from freedom of the latter.
Linking with
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
In this case, therefore, it does not restrict my right to distribute
the hypothetical Palladium GCC, because I would give the recipient the
same rights as I got myself.
That runs into
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because it incorporates functionality implemented in proprietary
code.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It cannot do that if it is distributed with source and under the terms
of the GPL.
That's what I've been
One of which is that [for the purpose of this hypothesis] you had to
purchase the right to develop using these palladium features.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:51:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Where does your hyphotesis say that?
I just now stated it.
I had tried to make the completely
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:24:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
And I explained that your logic only applied to the parts which
were not licensed under the GPL -- not to the parts that are.
Your counterargument doesn't make sense.
DFSG#3 requires that The license must allow modifications and
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:57:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Of course, if I make a derivation that includes code for which I do
not have copyright, I will need the copyright holder's permission to
distribut the result under the GPL.
However, that is completely different from the GPL not
[ CC to debian-legal, Middleman ITP is bug #231953 ]
Hello,
middleman can't be accepted into Debian because of license conflicts.
Your software is licensed under GPL, but must be linked with OpenSSL.
OpenSSL is not GPL licensed but under an Apache-style licence [1], and
so, unfortunately, the
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:24:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
And I explained that your logic only applied to the parts which
were not licensed under the GPL -- not to the parts that are.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Your counterargument doesn't make sense.
Hi.
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
archives about it. The findings were confusing:
- There are many discussions (e.g. [2], [3]) about the patent
It would appear that the new upstream release of libapache2-mod-perl2 has
been relicensed; from the ASL 1.1 to the ASL 2.0. As has already been
discussed, the ASL (both 1.1 and 2.0) and GPL are
incompatible (at least, the FSF claims they are). What has previously
been used w/ modperl (1 and 2,
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
archives about it. The findings were confusing:
- There are
Package: abuse-sfx
Version: 2.00-8
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
To view the license terms, see the copyright file:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/a/abuse-sfx/abuse-sfx_2.00-8/copyright
First off, the license only grants the right to *use* the software:
For
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
Since the license included some suspicios
65 matches
Mail list logo
