Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in
main that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort
to ensure that everyting in main is DFSG-free, our users cannot make a
good-faith assumption that they can
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Firstly, Debian cannot possibly guarantee that none of the code it
distributes infringes on any patent in any country. So users in any
case cannot make a good-faith assumption that they are free to use
the code in their
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Under my analysis, it doesn't matter, because you can't copyright that
which is not copyrightable.
Wether you call it copyright or not it doesn't change the fact that
wordlists might fall under the IP-protection described by the European
Union's
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Does a patent make code non-DFSG-free?
Perhaps Debian says yes, but I don't quite understand the logic.
I think in general no, but Debian long ago moved all gif-writing
programs to non-free. IIRC that was a deliberate
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
The making of usable wordlists is a substantial investment in
verification. The work on the danish dictionary is one of the most
boring tasks I've ever been involved with in relation to open
source. I don't want to know how many
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in
main that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort
to ensure that everyting in main is
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No.
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
source code and saying, don't use this gets around patent law is
fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is using that part of the
code distributed by Debian.
The only
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 17:17, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
source code and saying, don't use this gets around patent law is
fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 15:33, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
While the decision found that blueprints could consititute part of a
substantial portion of the components, it was clear that paper and glue
were also needed. It's not clear to me that
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The DFSG doesn't care what specific part of the law is used to violate
users' freedoms; it just cares whether those freedoms are violated or
not.
I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software
being
11 matches
Mail list logo
