This is a message from the Wesleyan E-Mail Virus Protection Robot
--
You sent an e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the subject Test on Mon Feb 2
23:55:21 2004 that was
infected by a virus. We have deleted this file and have no
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
> > anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's
> > something that we have historically considered to
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
> anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's
> something that we have historically considered to be covered under
> it.
Huh? "unless that compone
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
> > package.)
> >
> > [In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
> > meet the OS exemption.]
>
> This r
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
> > operating system exemption anyway?
>
> No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
> package.)
>
> [In
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:35:39PM -0500, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
> exemption anyway?
Debian can never use this exception, due to the "... unless that
component itself accompanies the executable" clause. (You can use
a G
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
> operating system exemption anyway?
No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
package.)
[In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
meet the OS exem
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
exemption anyway?
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:49:41AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Been there, done that, learned something about GNU zealots. I'll try
> to stay out of this thread from now on.
Why do you insist on calling d-legal people "GNU zealots"? The fact that
this is at least the third time in two days tha
On 2004-02-03 00:46:13 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However, neither
> does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
> whatsoever.
You're making claims with no backing. In my position, would you believe Måns
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However,
> neither does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
> whatsoever.
You seem to forget that the GPL and the FSF's interpretation have been
researched rather carefully by its
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
>> Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
>
> Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitim
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so
>>> their published opinion probably would count.
>> The copyright owner does not
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
> Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitimately affect dynamic
linking every time a GPL comp
Måns Rullgård wrote:
>You are definitely not wrong. It's just the Debian folks that believe
>the faintest whisper from the FSF as were it the word of God.
The FSF have an opinion that's based on some amount of legal advice.
Unless we have either the at least the same amount of legal advice or a
On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so their
>> published opinion probably would count.
> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
> contradicti
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
> contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law
> is immoral.
There's no caselaw that I am aware of covering this particular issue
defining precisely where a derived work
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
>> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
>> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and ge
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
>> opinion
>> on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
>> dynamically linking to a library is on
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
> functionality. Should these be diff
On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not
creating a derived
Walter Landry wrote:
>Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 06:40:59PM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
>> > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person (the "User")
>> > obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>> > "Softw
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It's just the Debian folks that believe the faintest whisper from
> the FSF as were it the word of God.
You must have slept through the GFDL discussions then.
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, paul cannon wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
> opinion on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational
> view that dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that
> library, not creating a derived work from it.
Consideri
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
>> > must carry the same restrictions as those in
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The opinion of the XFree86 project is irrelevant. It is the licenses
>> on GPLed works that would be violated, not the license on XFree86, so
>> it's the interpretation of the authors of the GPLed works that counts.
>
> I don't quite see how this is so. I
On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
> > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it
> > does not seem there
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 05:17:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> > Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the
> > similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising
> > clause":
>
> Let's nip that in the
On 2004-01-31 18:17:23 + Laurent Fousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- one is taken from RFC 3174 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html,
license terms at the end).
I don't like the wording of "derivative work that comment on...", I
think it narrows the scope of what kind of derivative wor
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:47:45PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
> > crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
> > This is due to some restriction
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040201 22:28]:
> It would still be better if the disclaimer disclaimed implied warranties only
> to, say, "the fullest extent permitted by law". :-) This presumably isn't
> strictly necessary, because the usual interpretation of illegal warranty
> discla
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
> crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
> This is due to some restrictions with the definition of "public domain"
> that the government uses
32 matches
Mail list logo
