(I originally posted this to debian-user, as GFDL Freeness Question)
I have some articles on the general topic of software quality at:
http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/articles/
They are all under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.1.
I would like these articles to be included in
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
[...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is] suitable for
revising the document straightforwardly
* Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 21:57]:
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted sub 2 can be
applied, it may only disallow you making something available to
the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it).
It says changed _OR_
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
You
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, how about Tuomas Kuosmanen, the creator of a whole lot of fine icons
in various free software packages? Would his qualify as an artistic
reputation?
Perhaps.
Would he be able, regardless of the fact that his icons are released
under GPL, to prevent
Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
specifies a brief back cover text:
Is that a problem?
My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that we're likely
to consider *any* cover text as a problem. The one
Scripsit Greg Pomerantz
The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
whether they believe it is prejudicial to their honor and reputation.
That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who
I don't think so. On the contrary, BECAUSE of the fact that he
voluntarily released his icons under GPL, it is an integral part of
the artistic character of the work that it can be used in any context
and with any modifications anyone pleases. Therefore, no actual use or
modification can
* Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 21:57]:
Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
On Fri, 2 May
The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
whether they believe it is prejudicial to their honor and reputation.
That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who decides this.
Sure,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
that coffee might be hot).
Punitive damages are a stupid concept (does any country other than the
USA have them?) but
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
that coffee might be hot).
Can we put this legend to rest? I realize this is off-topic,
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
(Opposite in some other parts of the world where one can become
rich simply by being too stupid to imagine that coffee might be hot).
1. The coffee in question was *much* hotter
Hello everyone,
On debian-chinese list someone has expressed an intension to package a
Chinese input server SCIM and its plugins for Debian. The input server
program SCIM is released under LGPL. However the server alone doesn't do
anything interesting. The real input methods are developed as
Scripsit Greg Pomerantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, but a free software developer cannot walk into court and argue
that they did not intend to grant the right to redistribute
Exactly my point.
At the very least, the GPL and most other free software licenses are
be problematic in moral rights
Scripsit Yong Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
One of the plugins, arguably the only one that most people will be
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030502 20:30]:
Scripsit Yong Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
One of
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
[...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is]
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If author's rights would be introduced in the USA, this might be the
case.
Author's rights, or at least the moral rights idea therein, are
already in US law. 17 US Code article 106A says, for example, that
the author shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:06:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format,
anyway? [...] Forcing you to
On 2 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Yong Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
One of the plugins,
I came across the following while reading the wxWindows documentation (from the
wxwin2.4-doc package):
We also acknowledge the author of XFIG, the excellent Unix drawing tool, from
the source of which we have borrowed some spline drawing code. His copyright is
included below.
XFig2.1 is
Package: automake1.6
Version: 1.6.3-5
Severity: serious
I noticed this from a discussion in #148412 about gimp's licensing)
mizar:[~] head -16 /usr/share/automake-1.6/install-sh
#!/bin/sh
#
# install - install a program, script, or datafile
# This comes from X11R5 (mit/util/scripts/install.sh).
23 matches
Mail list logo
