And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's programs and
fonts are scattered over many places, the copyright pages in books, and
comments in source code and readme files
(please CC: since I'm not in the list)
I understand that crack's [1] license (adjointed) is free, however, I'm
surprised its not in Debian yet (whileas john is). I just wanted to check
before packaging it (there's an ITP #82613 but it's almost 2 years ago),
since it sounds DFSG-compatible to me.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:36:31 +0100, David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's
The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
every angle I can think of, but I just can't find a consistent meaning
other than that Knuth has put this in the public domain, but makes strong
requests
On 2002-09-04 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting vol E either.
The millenium edition has this:
The programs for Computer Modern are in the public domain,
and readers may freely generate and hand-tune their own fonts
using the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
every angle I can think of, but
Perhaps this should be taken to mean that even though
they're now in the public domain, the wishes expressed in those
copyright notices should still be followed?
I don't think the status of the released cm fonts has ever changed has
it? From the beginning the statements about copyright and PD
TeX, METAFONT, and the CM fonts certainly were under his
copyright at some point in the past, and there are copyright notices
- From that era.
I see Martin has posted the text from vol E (ME).
Note that the millenium edition is fairly new (as its name suggests)
a combined set of all of the
Howdy!
I was wondering.
In the light of the Greek goverment banning[1] ALL forms of electronic
gaming, even playing electronic chess is now illegal, how will this
effect the distribution of debian in Greece? Will there have to be a
non-greece section =)
-- Coops
[1]
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:09:25PM +0100, Hereward Cooper wrote:
I was wondering.
In the light of the Greek goverment banning[1] ALL forms of electronic
gaming, even playing electronic chess is now illegal, how will this
effect the distribution of debian in Greece? Will there have to be a
[Ben Armstrong]:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:09:25PM +0100, Hereward Cooper wrote:
In the light of the Greek goverment banning[1] ALL forms of electronic
gaming, even playing electronic chess is now illegal, how will this
effect the distribution of debian in Greece? Will there have to be a
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:20:47PM +0200, Hartmut Figge wrote:
Aside from the gameland site and other sites quoting it, I can find no
^^
Like I said.
mainstream news sites carrying this item. It seems therefore that this is a
matter
Oops, in all of my slogging through various news sources and gamer forums I
mistakenly confused these two sites:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:29:03PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Aside from the gameland site and other sites quoting it, I can find no
...
other than the Netcafe site (which has an
Scripsit Rob Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 16:59, Steve Langasek wrote:
Can someone familiar with Spanish IP law comment on what weight is given
to prior art in the case of a trademark challenge? I'm assuming that,
one way or another, some money will have to be spent on
[Ben Armstrong]:
But my basic point remains: Greek gaming sites are in an uproar about the
law, but other than their point of view on it, I cannot find anything else
of substance about it.
Did you found the translation of the full text of this law?
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However the _intent_ of the TeX conditions is clear (and stated in all
caps in the text I quoted); Change whatever you like, so long as you
change your name (including names of relevant files).
The name of, exactly, what? That's the problem.
Knuth
Martin Schröder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2002-09-04 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting vol E either.
The millenium edition has this:
The programs for Computer Modern are in the public domain,
and readers may freely
CEINTEC[1] has sent a response[2] to Barrapunto[3] in which they say
that the Debian trademark is registered by a person, related to the
academy but not by the academy itself. They say that this person
registered the trademark to protect it, and that they're confident that
he wants to give
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
at this address:
And note that it begins with I decided to
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
at this address:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
Note that if this means *anything* at all, the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps in part, but your line of reasoning above makes me extremely
uncomfortable. When the author of a package has clearly stated their
expectations and requirements for redistribution, it seems like that
should be treated as the license, even if they
On 4 Sep 2002, Hereward Cooper wrote:
I was wondering.
In the light of the Greek goverment banning[1] ALL forms of electronic
gaming, even playing electronic chess is now illegal, how will this
effect the distribution of debian in Greece? Will there have to be a
non-greece section =)
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question also has to asked, well, what's an electronic game? I enjoy
programming on my own time, and maintaining debian packages is a bit of a
game to me - so will Debian packaging now become illegal in Greece? The law
is, quite honestly,
On 4 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think it's almost certain that game in this context means a
*gambling* type of game.
It did seem that was who they were trying to stop, but I've not seen any
guarantees that that is all the law covers.
--
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 4 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think it's almost certain that game in this context means a
*gambling* type of game.
It did seem that was who they were trying to stop, but I've not seen any
guarantees that that is all the law
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if Debian is not violating the intended license directly, to base
a stance on the viewpoint that the license is legally uninforcable and
therefore irrelevant seems rather disconcerting.
Are you
On 4 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[New Greek law]
If this is really something that makes playing electronic chess
illegal, then I'm sure we will find out by some mechanism other than
the rumor mill.
The Register has carried several articles on the matter, and while they're
not
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 4 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[New Greek law]
If this is really something that makes playing electronic chess
illegal, then I'm sure we will find out by some mechanism other than
the rumor mill.
The Register has carried several
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:24:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. This is the fundamental question, namely whether the DFSG only
allows requirements of changing names as a way to handle what are in
essence marketing issues (making sure the user knows they have a modified
package), or whether
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:24:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if Debian is not violating the intended license directly, to base
a stance on the viewpoint that the license is legally uninforcable and
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not clear to me, but that doesn't really matter. If the entire TeX
community is going to rise up and call Debian a bunch of degenerates for
saying that something that's been placed in the public domain is in the
public domain, then maybe Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
The question is whether they are free software. A restricted API,
which you call a protected API, is not a
On Sep 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't find your argument particularly persuasive; it seems to be very
strong on emotion without a lot of logic to back it up, or without any
real discussion of what you're trying to defend and why.
The Debian Project has a philosophical commitment to protecting
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
I understand.
The question is whether they are free software. A restricted API, which
you call a protected
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm
familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so
apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem with the copying
policy. I suppose it's possible that he
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm
familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so
apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem with the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The CM fonts are generally considered to be part of the TeX system, since
they're the default fonts, and I believe they've had this renaming
requirement at least for quite some time. I certainly remember it clearly
from when I first started using TeX in
38 matches
Mail list logo
