Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
On Sunday 15 February 2009 10:49:17 pm Ben Finney wrote: Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as defined where? Or what, exactly, are you claiming? You also seem to be under the misapprehension that “to copyright” is something that a creator does to a work. It's not. Instead, copyright is an automatic monopoly granted *to* the creator; under the Berne convention, nobody decides “to copyright” a work. Or, more briefly: copyright long ago stopped being a verb, and is now a noun. It's now more akin to a very insidious attribute that slithers into just about any human intellectual work usually uninvited, and is very difficult to eradicate completely from the work. Wow... ideological ax to grind? even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as possible. “Difficult to read” isn't the same thing as “non-creative”. On the contrary; you have demonstrated that someone can creatively decide on different creative expressions of the same work, to the extent that you contrast your expression with one that differs in its uses of variable names and whitespace. He didn't say difficult to read, he pointed out that his variable names are defined by what they do and thus highly functional. It is like writing a book where your characters are named Hero and Villain. You aren't going to be getting a copyright on just the names in the way that J.K. Rowling has with Harry Potter. Moreover, I'm not aware of a valid legal theory that use of variable names or whitespace have any bearing on whether a particular work is subject to copyright. Then you aren't looking very hard. Of course, you already made it perfectly clear how you feel about copyright in general, but one of the central premises they teach you about copyright law in law school is that copyrights can be thin or weak. It's not to say that such a work doesn't have a *some* copyright, it is to say that one has to work VERY HARD to actually infringe it. Thin copyrights generally require verbatim copying to be infringed, where a more substantive copyright is easy to infring via derivative work or the theory whose name I can't remember that says you had access to the original, so you probably used it as a copy. Given all that, I'd be very wary of taking the above quoted claims as having any meaningful application. I must say Ben, you're entire email just drips of hash judgment. Here's a dude, Mr. Joe Smith, who is trying to do something helpful by providing a clean room implementation of the javascript code... doing something, instead of just saying what *ought* to be done like the all previous responders in this thread. Instead of saying thanks, you decide to just tear him to shreds? What sort of a community do you think this should be? Good grief... To Joe, it would be nice if (if you are the original author of the clean-room code you provided) to give explicit notice of the license you are distributing it under so that Colin Turner (the original questioner) can package it up and provide a proper copyright notice. Beyond that, thanks for your efforts. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote in message news:874oyuq3ki@benfinney.id.au... Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as defined where? Or what, exactly, are you claiming? That was intended to be hyperbole. But, surely if any code could reasonably be claimed to be too trivial for copyright protection to apply, that work could. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that “to copyright” is something that a creator does to a work. It's not. Instead, copyright is an automatic monopoly granted *to* the creator; under the Berne convention, nobody decides “to copyright” a work. I am well aware of that, but trying to use more accurate phrasing like too trivial for copyright protection to apply, made the sentence sound awkward. You are of course correct that I should have used better phrasing here. “Difficult to read” isn't the same thing as “non-creative”. On the contrary; you have demonstrated that someone can creatively decide on different creative expressions of the same work, to the extent that you contrast your expression with one that differs in its uses of variable names and whitespace. Yes, but use of the most trivially functional possible version minimizes the amount of creative content. If I write a phonebook, in which I hand selected the order of names such that they fit an acrostic, that may very well be be subject to copyright. But it is well established that the standard alphabetical ordering is purely functional (non-creative). Moreover, I'm not aware of a valid legal theory that use of variable names or whitespace have any bearing on whether a particular work is subject to copyright. In general no variable names and whitespace should not make a difference, although surely by minimizing the amount of potentially creative content in a work makes it less likely to fall on the side non-trivial, rather than trivial. Normally only on edge cases should variable names or whitespacing make a difference. However the edge between sufficently creative to subject to copyright protection, and innsufciently creative to be subject to copyright protection is certainly not well defined. Therefore, for this purpose, it was decided to err on the side of caution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote in message news:874oyuq3ki@benfinney.id.au... Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as defined where? Or what, exactly, are you claiming? That was intended to be hyperbole. In an area that is so riddled with absurd realities as copyright law, hyperbole is often indistinguishable from an earnest attempt at accurate description. So, intentional hyperbole is a risky way to communicate an understanding of copyright law. But, surely if any code could reasonably be claimed to be too trivial for copyright protection to apply, that work could. I wouldn't think so. In writing it, you made a number of creative decisions that could have been made differently, and hence it's a creative work. “Difficult to read” isn't the same thing as “non-creative”. On the contrary; you have demonstrated that someone can creatively decide on different creative expressions of the same work, to the extent that you contrast your expression with one that differs in its uses of variable names and whitespace. Yes, but use of the most trivially functional possible version minimizes the amount of creative content. I don't think the word “creative” means, in copyright law, what you think it means. (Mind you, it might not mean what *I* think it means either, and I'd love to be edifimaculated by our actual lawyers.) In normal language we say that a work is “creative” as a kind of contrast with “dull” or “mainstream”, and I think that's the meaning you're intending above. But that meaning doesn't seem relevant. My understanding is that a work meets the copyright-law meaning of “creative” if, in creating it, decisions of expression were made that could have been made differently to achieve an equivalent result. The resulting expression might be terribly exciting or it might be yawn-worthy, but the creativity that concerns copyright law is in the creative *process*, as judged by the fixed expression. Or, in other words: just because an expression is dull (or otherwise fails the common-usage meaning of “creative”), doesn't impact whether it meets the definition of “creative” for determining the applicability of copyright. If I write a phonebook, in which I hand selected the order of names such that they fit an acrostic, that may very well be be subject to copyright. But it is well established that the standard alphabetical ordering is purely functional (non-creative). Yes. I agree with your conclusion in this new example, by my argument above. I don't see that your Javascript example is non-creative by the same argument. -- \ “I got some new underwear the other day. Well, new to me.” —Emo | `\ Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes: On Sunday 15 February 2009 10:49:17 pm Ben Finney wrote: Moreover, I'm not aware of a valid legal theory that use of variable names or whitespace have any bearing on whether a particular work is subject to copyright. Then you aren't looking very hard. Of course, you already made it perfectly clear how you feel about copyright in general, but one of the central premises they teach you about copyright law in law school is that copyrights can be thin or weak. It's not to say that such a work doesn't have a *some* copyright, it is to say that one has to work VERY HARD to actually infringe it. Thin copyrights generally require verbatim copying to be infringed, where a more substantive copyright is easy to infring via derivative work or the theory whose name I can't remember that says you had access to the original, so you probably used it as a copy. That's very interesting. I'm intrigued to know of such a distinction being taught to copyright law students; it sounds like exactly the sort of mapping to the real world that would be good to see more of in these laws. What basis does this have in the law itself, for those of us without benefit of such instruction? Given all that, I'd be very wary of taking the above quoted claims as having any meaningful application. I must say Ben, you're entire email just drips of hash judgment. I'm glad Joe took my message in the spirit which I intended, rather than this mis-reading. To Joe, it would be nice if (if you are the original author of the clean-room code you provided) to give explicit notice of the license you are distributing it under so that Colin Turner (the original questioner) can package it up and provide a proper copyright notice. Beyond that, thanks for your efforts. The main point of Joe's message was that he explicitly *doesn't* think copyright applies to the small Javascript work as he presented it. What reason, then, would you present for claiming (as you here imply) that copyright *does* apply to that work? -- \ “The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days | `\later you're hungry again.” —George Miller | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
On Saturday 07 February 2009 06:21:55 Colin Turner wrote: ... the code is so astonishingly trivial ... Given this, why not just take 10 minutes and reimplement it? -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Colin Turner c...@piglets.com wrote in message
news:498d8af3.7030...@piglets.com...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I hope you can help and advise on this issue. I am packaging a web
application for Debian, I am also the principal upstream author. The
code is generally GPL v2 PHP. Over the years the project inherited, from
a side project, a small fragment of Javascript that has no explicit
license.
The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting
available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I
have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply
to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how
it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with
different variable names.
Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides
(counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and
losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application.
CT.
Code follows...
// Use one function for multiple text areas on a page
// Limit the number of characters per textarea
Here, is a clean room implmentation of a drop-in compatible (same argument
order) function that will do the job.
function functionName(textObject,sizeRemainingObject,maxSize)
{
textObject.value=textObject.value.substring(0,maxSize);
sizeRemainingObject.value=maxSize-textObject.value.length;
}
Compared to the above it works the same, except that the second parameter
will always be updated, to the number of characters remaining. Seeing as
this appears to be intended to limit the size of text input in a textarea,
while visually displaying the number of characters left in something else,
that should be fine.
(Yes I've checked, and substring does the right thing here).
This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to
copyright, even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as
possible. (Although I would recomend reformatting the whitespace used to be
more readable).
Use it and be happy.
Joe Smith
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com writes: This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to copyright That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as defined where? Or what, exactly, are you claiming? You also seem to be under the misapprehension that “to copyright” is something that a creator does to a work. It's not. Instead, copyright is an automatic monopoly granted *to* the creator; under the Berne convention, nobody decides “to copyright” a work. Or, more briefly: copyright long ago stopped being a verb, and is now a noun. It's now more akin to a very insidious attribute that slithers into just about any human intellectual work usually uninvited, and is very difficult to eradicate completely from the work. even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as possible. “Difficult to read” isn't the same thing as “non-creative”. On the contrary; you have demonstrated that someone can creatively decide on different creative expressions of the same work, to the extent that you contrast your expression with one that differs in its uses of variable names and whitespace. Moreover, I'm not aware of a valid legal theory that use of variable names or whitespace have any bearing on whether a particular work is subject to copyright. Given all that, I'd be very wary of taking the above quoted claims as having any meaningful application. -- \ “On the other hand, you have different fingers.” —Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net writes: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; Here's an analogy that I think demonstrates why your assertion isn't so: Person A has written a novel. Person B can write an encyclopedia article that describes in detail (but in their own words) that book. Person A's copyright is not infringed because person B did not make a derivative work of the book. Likewise, I don't think a prose description of the operation of a program is thereby a derivative work of the program. -- \ “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; | `\ but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” —Donald | _o__) Robert Perry Marquis | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
* Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net [090209 05:39]: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; the new code is a derivative work of the description and therefore the old code. Again, I've no legal training, so all educated guesses, ask a lawyer if you want to be sure. I think the main point of that is to make the description in a form that is not a derivative work. The form is monopolizeable, the ideas and algorithm behind it are not. Thus a description that only describes parts that are not protectable should effectively cut all chains of copyright. (This of course requires that the description is only describes the ideas and algorithms and is nothing like first there is an if, then a open parenthesis, then...). Note that I do not claim this is the only way, just that is a way so safe that I cannot immagine any judge to see any problems there... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
On Monday 09 February 2009 03:08:14 am Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net [090209 05:39]: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; the new code is a derivative work of the description and therefore the old code. Again, I've no legal training, so all educated guesses, ask a lawyer if you want to be sure. I think the main point of that is to make the description in a form that is not a derivative work. The form is monopolizeable, the ideas and algorithm behind it are not. Thus a description that only describes parts that are not protectable should effectively cut all chains of copyright. (This of course requires that the description is only describes the ideas and algorithms and is nothing like first there is an if, then a open parenthesis, then...). Just to add a bit more weight here, the above is more or less correct. When we talk about functionality we are, by definition, talking about patents. When we are talking about expression we are, by definition, talking about copyright. While the same physical object can be protected by both copyright and patent simultaneously, the two legal theories protect different aspects of that physical object and there is no overlap. Which means that if you can describe the javascript fragment at a purely functional level, then you are only describing those parts that are subject to patent, in which case you are free to reimplement that code provided no patent has been granted to the original inventor. Debian's policies on patents have been fairly forgiving in the past (essentially only worrying about patents which are being actively enforced), so I think the clean-room development idea being proposed is likely the safest route to go. But be certain to only describe functionality... once you start talking about implementation you enter into the world of creative expression, and now you are infringing on the copyright. But honestly, the function is trivially easy to describe in a pure functional sense and should take someone familiar with javascript all of five minutes to write once they understand what you are asking for. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Ben Finney dijo [Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:24:22PM +1100]: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; I don't think that's true. A derivative work is one that, in the judge's opinion, re-uses part of the original creative expression. If you express entirely in your own terms (modulo terms that have no other reasonable alternative, such as API names) how the program functions, you have not made a derivative work. If you confuse patents and copyright, it might be true. However, copyright deals with the exact, specific implementation (materalization) of ideas or other creative forms, not the ideas themselves. -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
Colin Turner c...@piglets.com wrote: Hi All, I hope you can help and advise on this issue. I am packaging a web application for Debian, I am also the principal upstream author. The code is generally GPL v2 PHP. Over the years the project inherited, from a side project, a small fragment of Javascript that has no explicit license. The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with different variable names. Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides (counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application. The FSF's guidelines used to specify [1] For the sake of registering the copyright on later versions of the software, you need to keep track of each person who makes significant changes. A change of ten lines or so, or a few such changes, in a large program is not significant. That wording has changed to remove the explicit reference to ten lines. So in the copyright file, I would mention that this fragment does not have an author and mention FSF's old position. I do not know how the ftp-masters will react, though. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg01035.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote: 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. Does that actually work? The description is a derivative work of the code; the new code is a derivative work of the description and therefore the old code. I know about reverse engineering a BIOS, but that's really just a defense against direct copying, as far as I know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I hope you can help and advise on this issue. I am packaging a web
application for Debian, I am also the principal upstream author. The
code is generally GPL v2 PHP. Over the years the project inherited, from
a side project, a small fragment of Javascript that has no explicit license.
The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting
available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I
have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply
to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how
it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with
different variable names.
Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides
(counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and
losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application.
CT.
Code follows...
// Dynamic Version by: Nannette Thacker
// http://www.shiningstar.net
// Original by : Ronnie T. Moore
// Web Site: The JavaScript Source
// Use one function for multiple text areas on a page
// Limit the number of characters per textarea
// Begin
function textCounter(field, count_field, limit)
{
if(field.value.length limit)
field.value = field.value.substring(0, limit);
else
count_field.value = limit - field.value.length;
}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmNivMACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZaiwACg3ImCStS5izO6jE3BFnOHQvOx
jf4An1eRFj4LLajOGXtZJtreigSrKh/9
=Is8p
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
In message 498d8af3.7030...@piglets.com, Colin Turner c...@piglets.com writes Hi All, I hope you can help and advise on this issue. I am packaging a web application for Debian, I am also the principal upstream author. The code is generally GPL v2 PHP. Over the years the project inherited, from a side project, a small fragment of Javascript that has no explicit license. The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with different variable names. This is your clue. Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides (counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application. If this is true, the code has no copyright therefore there is no problem. I'm not sure how you'd document it, but just put a reference to them that says assumes these snippets cannot be copyrighted because they are too trivial. replace if required. I'm not sure how the Debian ftp-masters will take that, but if there really is no other way of re-implementing it, then it truly is unprotectable. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
* Colin Turner c...@piglets.com [090207 14:43]: The problem I have is that the code is, like so much JS, sitting available, apparently for general consumption on several websites. I have been unable to acquire a license from any of the authors (no reply to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with different variable names. Any guidance on what I should do? The functionality the code provides (counting and capping characters in textareas) is quite useful and 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the code to write code doing this for you and use that code. 2) Do as in 1) but describe it to yourself. You should be really sure you'd write it that way even without knowing the code... 3) check if it is really trivial enough to not be protected by copyright laws. Note that most usual conditions to be elegible for copyright are waved for computer programs. (As almost every computer program would fail the non-triviality conditions for written texts, and compiled binaries the condition to be man-made). I guess checking this is quite complicated, as the different countries have different rules. The code really looks simply, but I do not know if any judge would agree that code that comes with multiple author information, contact information and comments can be deemed so trivial that it is without copyright. (so better ask some lawyer to be sure if you want to go this way). losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application. What happens if javascript is disabled? Please make sure the application also works then (or at the very minimum, fails gracefully). Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available! Niklaus Wirth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Anthony, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: to emails) and the code is so astonishingly trivial it's hard to see how it could possibly be re-implemented without it being the same code with different variable names. This is your clue. If this is true, the code has no copyright therefore there is no problem. I'm not sure how you'd document it, but just put a reference to them that says assumes these snippets cannot be copyrighted because they are too trivial. replace if required. I'm not sure how the Debian ftp-masters will take that, but if there really is no other way of re-implementing it, then it truly is unprotectable. It's precisely how to document it for ftp-masters that is worrying me. However, thanks very much for the input and clarification. CT. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmOFTgACgkQ0SwfPjLnaZbFXACfX3+F8POxoOL3WJi78piU3pVV N/EAoNSyH6LmYf85gpOuTLIqDFxWJDkC =UIrk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
