Re: GPL and command-line libraries

2004-12-07 Thread David Schmitt
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:34AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > A compiler can only perform a transformation from source to object form > programmed into it by its creators; it is neither an author nor capable > of creativity; it can this not produce an original work of authorship or > thu

Re: Copyright Question

2004-12-07 Thread David Schmitt
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > (Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The > authoritative source for this information would be the actual licenses > for the packages you include.) [snip] Excellent text. Could someone put this on www.d

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-28 Thread David Schmitt
On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote: > "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble > than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a > subjective criteria, and could raise issues with any code that someone > claims is difficult to main

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-02-28 Thread David Schmitt
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that > the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We > don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we > have the DFSG because

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-01 Thread David Schmitt
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 01:47, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they > > are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification > > because of lack

Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo

2005-03-02 Thread David Schmitt
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not > >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this

Documenting License Interpretations (was: Re: GPL for documentation ?)

2005-03-10 Thread David Schmitt
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to > > the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to > > the work. > > I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying tha

Documenting License Interpretations (was: Re: GPL for documentation ?)

2005-03-11 Thread David Schmitt
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to > > the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to > > the work. > > I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying tha

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-03-30 Thread David Schmitt
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 03:53, Raul Miller wrote: > Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no > viable alternatives were available to interface with the system. > > It's hard to see how this reasoning would apply in a context where there > is some viable alternative av

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-07 Thread David Schmitt
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote: > [snip] I got it from Alteon > under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under > the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it > under the GPL should be just fine. Then I would like to exercise my ri

Re: Artistic2?

2005-05-06 Thread David Schmitt
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:28, John Goerzen wrote: > Hi, > > I recently came across ths Artistic 2 (2.0beta5) license at: > > http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/LICENSE/Artistic-2 > > I couldn't find any previous reference to a DFSG discussion about it. > Would it be considered DFSG-free? For reference

Re: Why is choice of venue non-free ?

2005-02-10 Thread David Schmitt
On Monday 07 February 2005 02:58, Henning Makholm wrote: > I've often wondered which part of the DFSG supports the notion that > the right to create modified versions must be available even to people > who don't want to pay money to the author to have that right. Perhaps because the guidelines are