Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There also seems to be a consensus that this interpretation of the GPL
is not a valid one (eg. not a reasonable interpretation of the license
itself). Interpreting the GPL in strange, logically unreasonable ways
weakens the GPL, and weakening the GPL
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a
machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself
constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim,
but it is not
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:44:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, can it be
used in a business?
That depends on the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:08:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
it's about privacy, it's about the freedom to keep things private,
it's about not fundamental rights 'til you're blue in the face, and
even though every word of it's completely
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed tentacles of evil test:
3. The Tentacles of Evil test.
[...] The license cannot allow
even the author to take away the required freedoms!
The license doesn't have to --
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
project, and adds some code his friend was telling him under NDA. He
puts it up on the web, and suddenly
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:47:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't understand this question. Having access to the source is
necessary if you want to make changes. Examples of dentists' software
aren't relevant (unless you're a dentist), because that'd be outside
of the sort of use we
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:59:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sample onerous conditions:
1) Pay money.
2) Send your changes back always.
3) Pay money on request.
I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these.
4) Send your changes back on request.
I'm broke and on a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
to saying we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing.
I don't think this is true, if you accept the
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
tb rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
tb rules of the GPL), and they do not enhance anybody's freedom.
tb They are therefore onerous license
Hello,
May we discuss scilab's license, please? Scilab is currently assumed to
be non-free because of one sentence(1) in its license text
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt :
Any commercial use or circulation of the DERIVED SOFTWARE shall
have been previously authorized by INRIA
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:31:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We already reject (1), (2), and (3). Why is (4) suddenly not rejected
as onerous?
Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:58:04AM +, James Troup wrote:
ocaml is the canonical example; but there are others. I've even seen
people rip off the QPL and make it the fooPL; it's most noticeable
when they leave the choice
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
Actually, I think the GPL would have serious problems if it didn't have
3(a). Having to keep the source around for three years would be a
significant burden. What keeps the GPL free is that you have the option
to offer sources
Torsten Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May we discuss scilab's license, please? Scilab is currently assumed to
be non-free because of one sentence(1) in its license text
http://www-rocq.inria.fr/scilab/license.txt :
Any commercial use or circulation of the DERIVED SOFTWARE shall
have
(please keep me in Cc: as I'm not in the list)
I was considering packaging T.Rex firewall for Debian but I'm not totally
sure of several facts, one of the caveats is its current license :The
Livermore Public License (LPL), an Open Source License which is QPL-based.
It seems free to me, but I
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about:
* The freedom to study how the
Branden Robinson wrote:
This is an extremely important point; Mr. Espuny, please research this
issue and get back to us as soon as you can. If Mr. Landry's fears are
founded, then Debian might be infringing the copyrights of people
*other* than Mr. Burzi, *right now*.
This is a little
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The point is that the alleged user, even if he has the source to
what's behind the web page, *can't* change it, because it's on a
computer beyond his control, on the other side of that connection.
Giving him the source does *NOT* make it
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, dissidents supposedly want to be able to keep their changes
private to a small group from among all the people who have any knowledge
of their software. ASP folks want to keep their software private to
themselves.
Yes, dissidents want to
Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
Maybe a search with the keyword LZW may be enough?
Drew Daniels
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:15:10 -0500
From: Tartler, Cheryl D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Drew Scott Daniels' [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second
group is
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, there are cases of web apps that can be run just as well
on my local webserver, but I think they're a small minority. (It's
this group that you're describing in your other examples, but I
think it's the less significant category.)
The
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The point is that the alleged user, even if he has the source to
what's behind the web page, *can't* change it, because it's on a
computer beyond his control, on the other side of that connection.
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of modified versions
without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
Clause
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Rather, you should be able to decide who *you* give
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Uh, why, exactly? How is that different than saying
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
Since ocaml is a compiler (and its libraries are LGPLed), its clause 6
probably never comes into play. I'd like a better example :)
find /usr/share/doc/ -type f -maxdepth 2
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
Maybe a search with the keyword LZW may be enough?
As you're not exactly sure what you're looking for, isn't this rather
futile (and possibly dangerous[1])
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:21AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But that's exactly the error we reprimand legislators and businesses
for: believing that a different medium requires new laws to make it
safe. That I receive the output of software over HTTP should change
nothing from the cases
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:30:00 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
Maybe a search with the keyword LZW may be enough?
As you're not exactly sure
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
6) The infamous evil addendum is included in INSTALL file , not in
COPYING (i don't now if this fact is relevant at all), as follows:
I M P O R T A N TN O T E
IMPORTANT: I saw many sites that removes the copyright line in the footer
of each
Hi,
I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for
php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph
Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source
use (you can even use QPL for commercial opensource use). The
commercial license is used for
There are key points in what you said:
hec trying to be constructive
Mark Rafn wrote:
Honestly, unless/until we can get a clarification (e-mail is fine, and it
should be included in the distribution) from Mr. Burzi, I'd say this is
not ok to distribute at all, even in non-free.
I agree
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
demanding source from the author.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sample onerous conditions:
1) Pay money.
2) Send your changes back always.
3) Pay money on request.
I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these.
4) Send
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clause 6 still doesn't come into play if the derived application is
released under the QPL itself, in which case one has the choice of
distributing under clauses 3 and 4 instead.
This is no worse than a GPL'ed library (of which Debian does
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
project, and adds some code his friend was telling him
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its root, the absence of
restrictions. The fact that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The idea is that:
(a) gcc -o foo foo.o bar-gpl.o forms a work (foo) based on bar-gpl.o
and thus that people should make the full source of foo available
(b) gcc -o foo foo.o -lbar-gpl is much the same as the above
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In the way you're going on about it, yes, it is. What David's talking
about is this: if you've got a business, whose profits are based around
a monopoly on distributing a piece of software, you can't replace your
major bits of software with GPLed
Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb They are restrictions which do not preserve any important
tb rights of the holder of the software(like the source-provision
tb rules of the GPL), and they do not enhance anybody's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes:
Hi,
I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for
php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph
Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source
use (you can even use QPL for commercial
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
If the clarification is that it IS a license requirement, or that he
intends to retroactively change the license, it's not distributable at
all.
Unless i remove all GPL modules not from FB and move the packet to
non-free. Do you agree?
Perhaps.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this
list.
--
Glenn Maynard
So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
which he things should be no difficulty at all.
But as Henning has pointed out, the QPL doesn't *have* a forced
publication requirement. Thanks to Henning for
Mark Rafn wrote:
If the clarification is that it IS a license requirement, or that he
intends to retroactively change the license, it's not distributable at
all.
Unless i remove all GPL modules not from FB and move the packet to
non-free. Do you agree?
Perhaps. We'd have to
Mark Rafn wrote:
Also, Debian should not distribute software whose author has given an
indication that he intends to retroactively change a license. It's under
question whether this is possible, but I don't want to be a test case.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Hugo Espuny wrote:
I have heard this
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
publication or the Affero bit are
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
or
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
On matters of style, swim with the
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
Hmm, did they just tell me that there were other patents to scare me?
Maybe they meant the IBM patent on LZW :-)
Have you seen http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw.html ?
(The GIF Controversy: A Software Developer's
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Only when you're playing the game of trying to push the definition of
user as far as you can push it. And that's a perfectly legitimate
and good thing to do when you're discussing a license text, but in
doing so you shouldn't forget
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:29:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a commercial use, and you
are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
This comes back to Steve's message in
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page
the actual license grant:
] JpGraph is released under a dual license.
]
] QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and
] educational use and JpGraph
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say, every likelihood, I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
app, although not impossible. Still, it seems that the clause could be
reworded to take this into account.
The
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote:
QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can
be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License?
The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
Why is this different
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
without copyright law.
It only makes it more easily enforceable, and it operates purely as a
stick. I don't
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
Hah. Forced publication requirements *remove* no
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have to go back to looking at which restrictions we
allow. For instance, we allow the GPL's section 4, which prohibits
certain people (on account of their past actions) from copying,
modifying, or distributing GPL'd software. Why? One
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
and dynamic linking both make a single program, and anyone who
distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
intention of distributing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:00:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
way You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your binaries
isn't onerous.
It has been
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:45:02PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
The GPL places lots of obligations on people in the interests of preserving
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:02:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code
Admidst the storms of controversy, I'd just like to ask a (hopefully) simple
question... ;-)
The GPL is the clear winner for being a maximally standard copyleft free
license.
The BSD license is apparently not directly usable (mentions Berkeley
explicitly, etc), so these licenses are generally
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want to be able
to do the same for my customers. Ought that customer to be able to get
the source code? You
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, can it be
used
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license
details -- I'd like to just say BSD license or some appropriate standard
that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someone
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 05:01, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Richard Braakman wrotes:
Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would
go like this:
1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
2. The author is
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the
definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of
PHP-nuke or Apache.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Here, I think Apache is closer to
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke sites in part because
of their specific, unique features.
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
and dynamic linking both make a single program, and anyone who
distributes that program, in parts or as a
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
The basic reason here
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe rebuilds the software to offer customers contracts over the web.
Now, one of his customers says, that's really cool, I want to be able
to do the same for my customers. Ought that
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why the GPL is free
---
But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
of the code.
Doesn't this depend on which recipient you're
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally
free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it).
You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause BSD
license. FE, see http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say providing a service, you are inadvertently concealing a
significant difference between printing an invoice for a customer, and
the customer interacting with the software.
Excuse me? What is printing an invoice but interacting with the
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:24, Richard Braakman wrote:
My rule of thumb is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where
the technically ideal solution is blocked by software licensing, then
you're not dealing with free software. This is my version of freedom 0.
(You could always get
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
OK. It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.
--
Glenn
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
without copyright law.
It only makes it more
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
to make GFDL docs
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
algorithm from an application. I
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:26, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003,
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:30, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say, every likelihood, I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
app, although not impossible. Still, it seems that
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain
access to the work by
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:10:04PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The GPL is finally showing cracks after 14 years (12 for v2). I don't
think any license could work for 95 years (assuming no future CTEAs).
So, that's why there's the upgrade option.
I've always seen the upgrade clause as ensuring
Whoa, hold on. Your analysis is using a completely different set of
principles than Henning Makholm's. For you to analyze my cases
according to your principles instead of Makholm's, is to switch
standards on me mid-stream. I am currently in another few threads with
you about your principles for
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:59, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
