Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation of Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:00:48PM +0200: I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation. For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and give the copies to my students, I must also give them machine-readable source. This is a major nuisance. The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site. -- Don Marti http://zgp.org/~dmarti Join the Distributed Unisys Google Experiment. [EMAIL PROTECTED] a href=http://burnallgifs.org/;Unisys/a KG6INA everywhere.
Re: New idea for finessing patent issues (was: lame (again!))
begin Barak Pearlmutter quotation of Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:17:12AM -0600: Fortunately we're not actually talking about a *contract* here, just a warning. Be aware, some people claim that there might be a patent issue in some uses of this software (patents US7549857398573498, US84973549753987538, and US2153987543895473). Use it at your own risk. No warranty expressed or implied. You're own your own, son. This might be appropriate in some cases. But any patent policy should have promotion of patent reform, not just minimal legal compliance, as its goal. Some software patent holders, such as Unisys, have an unofficial free sample program, where they allow personal and educational use but take legal actions against business or public use. Participating in such programs confines free software to hobby use and class projects. In some situations, whatever the law says, it is a good idea to mess up the free sample program by refusing to infringe the patent even when the patent would not hold up in court, or if the chance of being sued is small. For example, refusing to include GIF-creating tools promotes patent-free formats, and helps make it possible to use free software in public or in business. Other patents, such as the BT patent on hyperlinking, are so ludicrous that an infringement warning would be appropriate, since it would inform users about the problems with some countries' patent systems. -- Don Marti I've never sent or received a GIF in my life. http://zgp.org/~dmarti-- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies, p. 246. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Free the Web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/
Re: possible ITP: mindterm (somebody, shoot me, please)
begin Joey Hess quotation of Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:15:38AM -0700: Hmm. I guess that means that a copy of the source code should be made available from the same web server, to satisfy the GPL. Weird, but doable. I don't think it need be part of the same jar archive; providing a link should do. Is this sane? ianalYes, it's sane, and no it doesn't have to be part of the same archive. Server operators could also fulfil their GPL obligation by offering source on CD-ROM via postal mail, which is a little less sane./ianal -- Don Marti I've never sent or received a GIF in my life. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies, p. 246. http://zgp.org/~dmarti/(Free the Web: http://burnallgifs.org/)
Re: Legal risk of software authoring?
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 06:11:07PM -0500, William T Wilson wrote: I am thinking that while it might not be possible to shut down a Gnutella or Freenet by suing the operating company, it might be possible to stifle development by suing individual software authors. ianalYes, you're right. Be prepared for legal action of some kind if you do _any_ multimedia or peer-to-peer work, either because of DRM, charges of contributory infringement, or because of someone's bogus software patent./ianal We live in interesting times. If you're a peer-to-peer developer, Robin Gross at EFF will give you a consultation to help you get your legal act together _before_ the lawsuit happens. -- Don Marti I've never sent or received a GIF in my life. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies, p. 246. http://zgp.org/~dmarti/(Free the Web: http://burnallgifs.org/)
Re: Legal Question on GPL
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 09:49:56PM -0500, Steve Przepiora wrote: Hello, I have a legal question about a company stating they're product is covered by the GPL. I have included my correspondence with them which will explain the situation. This doesn't have to do with Debian, but this is the only place I know of that I could get this clarified for me. I do not subscribe to this list, if you could reply to me directly I would appreciate it. The GPL does not impose on software developers the duty to operate a web or FTP site. It is perfectly permissible under the GPL to just distribute source+binaries on a CD as this company is doing. Note that they do not interfere with the distribution rights of users who do operate sites. They seem to be in total compliance with the GPL. -- Don MartiThis email brought to you [EMAIL PROTECTED] by the number 67 and the http://zgp.org/~dmarti/ operator XOR. whois DM683 Software patent reform now: http://burnallgifs.org/
Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
begin Bernhard R. Link quotation of Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:34:05AM +0200: First of all I see this as a moot point, as an illigal action is illegal. By saying that you behave illegal, when you do something illegal is no discrimination in my eyes but should be seen as only beeing a reiminder. (But I am not a lawyer at all). First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one country are freedom fighters in another country. Third, I can understand why there shouldn't be no breaking the law clauses in free software licenses. Let's say that example.com installs a new free accounting system, with a no breaking the law clause in its license, at tremendous cost in hardware and consulting time. Due to human error, they issue paychecks to all their employees for less than minimum wage. They correct the error, make up the missed pay, and pay a fine -- but in the meantime they have lost the license to their accounting system, and can no longer stay in business. Not even proprietary software licenses include a clause like this, since companies inadvertently break the law all the time. Licenses that require legally perfect behavior in an imperfect society with complex laws are unrealistic and dangerous. -- Don MartiThis email brought to you [EMAIL PROTECTED] by the number 67 and the http://zgp.org/~dmarti/ operator XOR. whois DM683 Software patent reform now: http://burnallgifs.org/
Re: What type of license for iozone
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 05:37:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: He could copy and paste from http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (but clause 3 of that license should be left out). The X11 license is the closest to the BSD license without the advertising clause that the author seems to want. Cut and paste http://www.x.org/terms.htm, put the author's name in in place of the Open Group, and Bob's your uncle. The key advantage of the X11 license over the BSD license is that you can borrow X11-licensed code for a work covered by GPL or LGPL. A good field guide to licenses is: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html -- Don Marti Burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux rules: http://srom.zgp.org/ http://zgp.org/~dmarti You know you want this software: whois DM683http://zgp.org/~dmarti/warez/decss.tar.gz
Is this really patent-free LZW?
This web site claims to use something called the Adaptive Tree Algorithm to create LZW-compressed GIFs without using any patented algorithms. http://www.danbbs.dk/~dino/whirlgif/gifencod.html Source for gifencode.c is on the page. Is this for real? -- Don Marti | Use GIF images? You may already be a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | criminal. http://zgp.org/~dmarti | whois DM683 | http://burnallgifs.org/
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote: You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents in some countries should not be treated like programs restricted by their authors. gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us package. LZW is patented in countries other than the US -- United States Patent No. 4,558,302, Japanese Patent Numbers 2,123,602 and 2,610,084, and patents in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. according to http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStory/lzwfaq.html The Debian policy -- http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch2.html -- says that non-us is for cryptography that can't legally be exported from the US. But there are countries from which you can export crypto in which the LZW patent is enforced. As a practical matter, I discourage anyone from distributing any GIF files or software to create them. I want GIF to join Betamax, DIVX, and SDMI on the junk pile of formats whose owners killed them by trying to keep them proprietary. It will help to make an argument for openness and interoperability that even the most clueless of managers can understand. But if you must have a category for free software to create a GIF, neither non-us nor non-free seems to apply. -- Don Marti | Free the web. Burn all GIFs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | You can't spell software patent reform http://zgp.org/~dmarti | without U. whois DM683 | http://burnallgifs.org/
