I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing source
code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I looked at
http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html#license and found
the following text:
If not otherwise specified, the
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
of Stallman's
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
files for quite a while now.
Hmm, aren't Verbatim texts a special
On 20030427T095714+0200, Oliver M. Bolzer wrote:
To my knowledge Klaus Knopper has repeatedly stated that he would send
the source to anyone if they sent him the needed number of blank CD-Rs.
IMHO that's a reasonable way to distribute source, though slightly
inconvenient. The blank CD-Rs
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jonathan Fine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:12, Henning Makholm wrote:
The current status of the preamble goes much farther than
that. It says that I must not reuse the wordings in the preamble for
composing a text that expresses *my* views on licensing (and makes
clear that they are mine, not the FSF's).
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 05:08, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
That guideline is intended to disallow things like If you're French,
you may not use this package. The license must be
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
The license grants these person(s) privileges that are
not granted to other licensees.
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type
Oliver == Oliver M Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman
Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not
distributing source code to GPL packages that they distribute.
In
Since it has not been specifically mentioned in this discussion, I would like
to point out the following particular message from Richard Braakman:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00034.html
This appears to represent a consensus view of Debian:
* Some people
Georg said:
Yes. But that is a question of Copyright law, not license.
Given that a document is under a license that permits modification,
any redistributor could add anything and then say that removing it
would hurt his or her moral rights.
First of all, 'moral rights' don't exist in the US.
Georg, continuing to miss the point entirely, wrote:
I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
persons Copyright. GNU Free Documentation
Peter S. Galbraith said:
psg It's copied from http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
psg If that text were licensed with invariant sections, I'd have to
psg include them in this one-page help screen.
Georg said:
Right now you'd probably have to treat it as potentially invariant as
a
Looking at the GPL it has this statement:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
* Some people believe that immutable sections are not acceptable in a free
document,
Aye.
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they consist of non-technical material.
Woah. I don't think anyone has
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Darryl Palmer wrote:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Darryl Palmer wrote:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Darryl Palmer wrote:
Looking at the GPL it has this statement:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 05:54:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Oliver == Oliver M Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman
Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they consist of non-technical material.
Woah. I don't think anyone has said that,
Truth to be told, I recently said
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Darryl Palmer wrote:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with
Georg said:
Naturally, I'm more familiar with the European Copyright -- or Droit
d'Auteur, rather -- systems, but since Europe is a very active region
for Free Software, considering the European situation seems useful.
Please note that this system is contrary in its basis to the system in the
24 matches
Mail list logo
