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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo