Employment going back up they said
G E TY O U R U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A Do you want a prosperous future, increased earning power more money and the respect of all? Call this number: 1 775 490 9881 (24 hours) There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews! Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, GED and Doctorate (PhD) diploma! Receive the benefits and admiration that comes with a diploma! No one is turned down! Call Today 1 775 490 9881 (7 days a week) Confidentiality assured! 32.240.112.48 108.187.164.202 6.90.64.192 126.36.156.129 162.34.216.32 160159.183.209 72.21.238.156 156.100.98.248 60.187.118.184 219.222.91.208 Frankie 208.230.224.204 156.91.176.0 Fuller 131.64.73.200 Frankie Fuller 20.68.138.84 248.108.128.110 120.80.116.124 169.147.245.80 64.124.194.26 203.11.94.184 223.195.34.6 Frankie Fuller 213.228.240.208 52.65.0.144 144.112.91.50 Frankie Fuller 0.158.80.182 Frankie Fuller 89.46.220.215 brillouin gamin sonorous ace bestseller funk sarcasm crosspoint delphinus circuit Frankie bursty apatite Fuller elite Frankie Fuller waxwork wyoming effectual worldwide chaise waxy dignify Frankie Fuller schenectady map chalmers Frankie Fuller zachary Frankie Fuller deed 71.240.64.34 76.176.229.132 16.6.108.197 10.147.153.150 198.164.112.248 253.28.179.108 64.0.48.75 151.204.128.151 22.224.112.244 45.192.0.155 Frankie 128.19.174.29 1.240.72.234 Fuller 215.71.68.153 Frankie Fuller 98.96.155.84 105.176.204.30 64.48.77.86 204.236.88.134 192.0.0.106 254.128.244.255 140.200.90.76 Frankie Fuller 63.161.64.54 166.200.108.195 108.176.242.208 Frankie Fuller 5.80.91.228 Frankie Fuller 1.118.26.142 Frankie Fuller distraught coarse crockett Frankie Fuller locus Frankie Fuller demarcate
Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040602 16:42]: If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anything by themselves, *you* are the one who are creating the copy on your hard drive. And creating a copy is smack in the middle of the copyright holder's legal monopoly. If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to you (like ssh'ing into a solaris box and copying /bin/true), this may be true. But normally someone set up a computer do make a copy and sent it to me, if I request it. As when someone makes copies of a CD and sends them to me, when I send him a postcard. Now when I send a postcard somewhere, there those are scanned and when they are a printout of the request-formular, the CD is burned, copied the address field on an envelope and sends it out. Would I still be the one copying in your understanding of the situation? what if the form says: might be processed without human intervention? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Which license for a documentation?
Hi, I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100% respecting Debian policies. The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the license is not usable to be uploaded under Debian. It says: Permission is granted to make copies for personal or educational use They are ok to change the license of this document so that it can be DFSG free. Now the question is which one they should use. The problem of a documentation license is not new and there is still some discussion about the freeness of some of them. My aim here is not to start a discussion about should these previous license be free or not free. I just want to know if there is a list of common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG free. Thanks in advance, Matthieu Delahaye [1] : http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~usystem/uC++.html [2] : ftp://plg.uwaterloo.ca/pub/uSystem/u++-5.0.ps.gz -- It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse-races. -- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthieu Delahaye) wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100% respecting Debian policies. The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the license is not usable to be uploaded under Debian. It says: Permission is granted to make copies for personal or educational use They are ok to change the license of this document so that it can be DFSG free. Now the question is which one they should use. The problem of a documentation license is not new and there is still some discussion about the freeness of some of them. My aim here is not to start a discussion about should these previous license be free or not free. I just want to know if there is a list of common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG free. Use the same license as the program. Then it will be possible to take code and put it into the docs, and vice versa. This is not the first time that this has come up. Perhaps there could be a FAQ at www.debian.org/legal? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a Free! sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available, and the one needing permission from the copyright holder. The thing that needs permission is not making the copy *available*; it's making the copy at all in the first place. It don't see how it's any different if I set up a printer with a button saying Push for free book!. I didn't actually make the copy; he's the one who pushed the button! isn't something I'd try in court. No, not if you were accused of contributory infringement by making it too easy for third parties to make copies of a specific work that they are not allowed to make copies of. The fact that *you* are in trouble, however, does not in itself stop the person pushing the button from being in trouble *too* if he knew that said button would cause the machine to manufacture a copy that he did not have any right to manufacture. I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most copyrighted works for their own personal use, even without permission from the copyright holder. This is what gets the downloader and the button-pusher off the hook, rather than a fiction that they are not really creating copies. -- Henning Makholm Hør, hvad er det egentlig der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?
Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:15:50AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing. Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states a choice of law, not venue. But then it must be very clear that that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change would be irrevocable. We cannot promise that we will not find other issues with the package or license in the future. We can say that choice of venue clauses are bad, while choice of law clauses are okay. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I just want to know if there is a list of common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG free. I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences would work for any software and there are benefits from having your manuals under the same licence as your program. Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. ? Also, does it seem legally useful? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/
Re: Which license for a documentation?
MJ Ray wrote: Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. Please link to this site seems non-free to me. What if you are making a copy in a medium which does not support links? What if the copy will be behind a restrictive firewall that doesn't allow access to external websites? What if your site goes down, or is replaced by something people don't want to link to? Also, if you copied the software from a mirror, does this site refer to the original or a mirror? If by Please ask me to link to mirrors. you mean If you want me to put a link to your mirror on my site, ask., then that clause is fine, but really shouldn't be part of the license. It is not related to copying the work; it just provides information about how to get your mirror listed on the official site. ? Also, does it seem legally useful? Depends, what are you trying to achieve? - Josh Triplett
Re: Which license for a documentation?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I just want to know if there is a list of common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG free. I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences would work for any software and there are benefits from having your manuals under the same licence as your program. Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would frown upon the request for credit. ? Also, does it seem legally useful? Ask a lawyer about that. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which license for a documentation?
Josh Triplett wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. Please link to this site seems non-free to me. What if you are making a copy in a medium which does not support links? What if the copy will be behind a restrictive firewall that doesn't allow access to external websites? What if your site goes down, or is replaced by something people don't want to link to? Also, if you copied the software from a mirror, does this site refer to the original or a mirror? If by Please ask me to link to mirrors. you mean If you want me to put a link to your mirror on my site, ask., then that clause is fine, but really shouldn't be part of the license. It is not related to copying the work; it just provides information about how to get your mirror listed on the official site. Is it not the case that requests like this are Free, even though they would not be if they were requirements? The only clauses in the license that are requirements (as opposed to requests) are I grant permission to you to do any act with my work., and No warranty offered and no liability accepted., which seem the same in intent as two-clause BSD (which is Free). -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:29AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. Please link to this site seems non-free to me. What if you are making Please sounds like a request, not a requirement; requests never make a license non-free. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not everyone lives in the US. You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not everyone lives in the US. You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one... I'm not saying the originating region matters; I'm saying that a copyright assignment clause might be valid in some regions. The only reason a particular region might matter is if there's a choice of law clause, which I suppose might render such a clause always invalid. (I'd be cautious about that, too--any this clause is non-free but unenforcable so let's ignore it reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with the understanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
On Jun 3, 2004, at 20:27, Henning Makholm wrote: But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that particular time and place. So then the server operator is guilty of at worst contributory infringement? Someone please go fill in RIAA...
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Jun 4, 2004, at 13:53, Josh Triplett wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Related, is the following licence DFSG-free: I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors. No warranty offered and no liability accepted. Please link to this site seems non-free to me. If it were you must link to my site, then it wouldn't. But it's not.
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not everyone lives in the US. You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one... I'm not saying the originating region matters; It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license, we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment, because it can't be. Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO, sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no. I'm saying that a copyright assignment clause might be valid in some regions. FYI, after much googling I think I might of finally found one... http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:WI9m0navnrwJ: www.ipophilippines.gov.ph/laws/ipcode/CopyrightsCh7.htm+hl=enie=UTF-8 (Yeah, google cache because their server seems dead...) I'm not sure if a license would count as a written indication of such intention. (I'd be cautious about that, too--any this clause is non-free but unenforcable so let's ignore it reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with the understanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.) Agreed.
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO, sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no. As a general rule, international copyright assignment is a bitch. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I'm not saying the originating region matters; It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license, we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment, because it can't be. Why can we be sure of that? Lots of people try to do things with copyright that they can't (often because they don't know that). I don't think that's a good way to judge what the author intended. In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from the author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.) Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO, sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no. I don't know what happens if you move to FOO, though. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from the author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.) This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing to do this work? I still think it is fine for them to assert their copyright interest in derived works. Nothing they have written denies other authors' interests, does it? Of course, if they have third-party-copyright material in their donated Source Code (possibly lawyerbomb?) then I think they have a problem anyway. I didn't notice claims of that sort yet. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing to do this work? This has nothing to do with making me happy. I only raised the issue; it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular piece of software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care about the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free. (It also wouldn't be a particularly good idea for me to contact upstream, who I have no relationship with; the package maintainer should probably be allowed to do that.) There's also not yet a consensus on the agree to the following terms or do not retrieve clause, which is why I havn't yet bothered the package maintainer about this (which may not ultimately be necessary, if consensus ends up being that both clauses are acceptable). -- Glenn Maynard
