I've been really enjoying Ruby on Rails recently. So, I wanted to add
the Ruby license to the FSF's license list (the summary is that the
license on its own isn't free, while in disjunction with the GPL, it is,
so Ruby as a whole is OK). But I discovered that the license text
specifically
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we
assuming you meant the copyright assignment statement, and
certainly, I will clarify. According to David Turner, IIRC, it requires
written paperwork for copyright assignment. Debian, though, usually
accepts emails as well, but not licenses that have default assignments.
This was a big deal
If you want to CC licensing@ from a thread in (say) debian-legal, here's
what to do:
1. Mail only licensing@
2. Take the autoreply it gives you, and extract the [gnu.org #] bit
from the subject.
3. Put that bit in the subject of all mails CC'd to licensing@
This will prevent the creation of
? The link [12] leads to some list archive where David
Turner is quoted as saying
The Slashdot article misparaphrased me. The submitter has agreed that
he misunderstood me, and the whole thing has been cleared up with the
Apache people. So, although I'll be sending messages like this for
the rest
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 12:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the
PHPNuke thread.
I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even
suggestion,
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
algorithms work. You can incorporate it into other
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about
I unfortunately no longer have time to read and comment on the various
AGPL threads (well over 500 messages so far). If you do have
suggestions for how to improve the license text, or otherwise ensure
that users of software can get the source code even if they use the
software over a network,
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
publication or the Affero bit are
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
On matters of style, swim with the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Only when you're playing the game of trying to push the definition of
user as far as you can push it. And that's a perfectly legitimate
and good thing to do when you're discussing a license text, but in
doing so you shouldn't forget
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
Why is this different
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want to be able
to do the same for my customers. Ought that customer to be able to get
the source code? You
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, can it be
used
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 05:01, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Richard Braakman wrotes:
Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would
go like this:
1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
2. The author is
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
The basic reason here
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:24, Richard Braakman wrote:
My rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where
the technically ideal solution is blocked by software licensing, then
you're not dealing with free software. This is my version of freedom 0.
(You could always get
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
without copyright law.
It only makes it more
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
to make GFDL docs
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution
, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current
interpretation of Fair Use applies to cases where there is no
copying taking place.
I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual
Fair Use analysis in another message
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:30, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say, every likelihood, I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
app, although not impossible. Still, it seems
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source
Whoa, hold on. Your analysis is using a completely different set of
principles than Henning Makholm's. For you to analyze my cases
according to your principles instead of Makholm's, is to switch
standards on me mid-stream. I am currently in another few threads with
you about your principles for
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:59, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring 2 itself:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:27, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:46, Joe Moore wrote:
Barak Pearlmutter said:
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 09:12, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Wouldn't a requirement that if you make the software available for
use
to another party, you provide an offer of source to those users
make
much more sense, and avoid entanglements with the function of the
software?
That would be
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:04, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:44, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to
non-recipient
users still
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the code they're hacking on is the least of
their worries - it's the
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case
law, they have a lot in common with the US
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:56, Anthony Towns wrote:
Specifying a protocol
in a license is a horribly bad thing; HTTP isn't useful everywhere,
and requiring you to rewrite the program entirely when the protocol
becomes obsolete is missing the point of free software pretty thoroughly.
We know the
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:52, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I'm cc'ing debian-legal for the legal part of this discussion.
LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
some versions of the gif file format.
There may not be reason to exclude lzw and related code as the
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 05:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hrm, actually I don't think it even works. It's trivial to get a copy of
the program, not modify it at all, and setup a wholly separate filtering
proxy to ensure no one actually can activate the immediate transmission
by HTTP of the complete
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes.
Of course, the issue is not money. The idea is that users of a program
ought to be able to get the source code for
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:29, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the licenses closed the ASP loophole in a way that forced me to
publish *all* these changes (and AFAIK that's one of the things
which people are considering), then I could not use this
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 05:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm not really convinced the ASP loophole is a loophole at all --
I'm not even really convinced that the GPL's attempts to cover various
forms of dynamic linking aren't over-reaching.
This isn't any thing specific to the GPL, but to copyright
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 21:06, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Here's a disastrous consequence. [...]
In this context (but not directly on-topic), I'd like to tell about
a little service we had running at Wapit, where I worked on
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 16:17, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forced publication of in-house development considerably increases the
cost of running software.
This is only true when you adopt a high
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
way, to print or display an announcement
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:36:18PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
(2)(c) concerns the act of modification
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:55, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By that definition, Apache is interactive, as is the Linux kernel.
Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
guess you could say grep responds to SIGKILL being
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 23:43, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only*
provides an exemption if the Program itself is interactive but does not
normally print such an announcement.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
comment period, and then the
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Since I think something
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:32, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5. There's an exception.
6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
library) isn't itself interactive.
7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:39, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
would be happy for it to brew some more
Can we please, please, please start another thread to discuss this?!
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and my example
PHPNuke pipeline?
PHPNuke is interactive. Grep
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG.
The Four
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
FSF's definition of Free Software -- Constitution
Debian Free Software Guidelines-- statutory law
debian-legal discussions -- case law
So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, attempt to
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:53:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
This, I simply don't think I can agree with. Perhaps a clearer example
would be irc.worldforge.org. It lives on a computer owned and operated
by Bob. But Bob basically never
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Oh... Let's say you run an ASP
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
*speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of
the foundation*
I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees,
but I'm
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:56, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what the Affero bit is?
I have another message in this thread
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hopefully you can understand my predicament. I'd really like to see
more in the way of round-table discussions between the FSF and the
Debian Project, especially since I feel that philosophically we have far
more similarities than
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:08, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from
the user, nor does it output direcly to the user.
Therefore it is not interactive.
Bingo.
PHPNuks
against giving credit, but I don't believe
credit is the purpose of the GPL blurb and no-warranty statement.)
I have a hard time figuring out what that purpose is, at this point.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:33, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:54, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Interestingly, I don't think (2)(c) would forbid a modified PHPNuke to
print the copyright notice to a printer (or console) in the server room,
instead of on the web page the user sees. The more I look at the
clause, the more convinced I
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United
States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer
to file a claim with the USPTO, then the FSF has a real problem.
No, then you have a section 6 and 7
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 16:48, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to
have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF:
http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 18:49, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb It's not about what's fair; they make a license, they get to
tb have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software
tb license.
Last time I heard, FSF was still
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
FooWebProg is Copyright 2003, a href
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the
way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't
generally spew a copyright
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:14:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Maybe for convenience, I'll use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I've got the FSF hat
on, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] otherwise.
That's a fairly subtle distinction; I recommend changing your
[replying to two messages at once]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll note that the GNU GPL's 2c), for instance, does not mandate that
the announcement of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer be
placed into files output or processed by the software, which is what
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:56, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner
(Is it on purpose that you didn't cc to the list?)
No, it was sheer idiocy. Fixed.
2(c) says that the notice must be displayed when started running for
such interactive use in the most ordinary way. That would
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
I agree that this is a Free Software license, personally. It seems
fundamentally no different
I downloaded OpenSSH from:
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/openssh-3.5p1.tar.gz
It has the following copyright notice for crc32.c.
* COPYRIGHT (C) 1986 Gary S. Brown. You may use this program, or
* code or tables extracted from it, as desired without
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attribution
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
Derivative Work:
| Derivative Work means a work based upon the Work or
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 17:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:51, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
Well... public domain in the USA
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 09:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
hi everybody
this is the second time:
i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen writes:
Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
say one
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
longer use
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
(2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 04:53, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:56:44 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The GPL forbids removing code from interactive programs which displays
copyright notices.
Yes
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
