On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 02:14, Branden Robinson wrote:
Another good argument against the GNU FDL.
Not to mention that publishing known false statements, like claiming it
is a GNU Manual or that the FSF publishes copies, is of dubious
legality.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 19:11, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
P is not a derived work of GPLLib, but P+GPLLib is likely to be a
derived work of GPLLib, in which case it is not allowed to distribute
them together.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], I posted the legal definition of a
derivative work in the
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 13:38, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
software.
My
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:03:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It probably leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone on this list,
but yes. You're coming closest to violating DFSG 3, if, for example, the
license required me to actively notify ABC Software, Inc. of the
changes.
Some of
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of
the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no less.
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
representing music.
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*. All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to
recreate a particular sound recording (made
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Please respect Debian list policy and my Mail-Followup-To header, and
don't Cc me.
An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
representing music.
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, you could certainly distribute P on its own if
you could reasonably claim that P is useful without GPLLib.
I'll further argue that P is not based upon GPLLib in any meaningful
manner; it includes absolutely no part of GPLLib.
If P is
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*.=20
Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
Music, in case you hadn't
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
V.2. Other Products.
Netscape may include Covered Code in products other than the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually it does. GNU TLS's OpenSSL compatibility layer is licensed
under the GPL, not the LGPL, last time I checked. This would cause
problems for at least some works we distribute.
Indeed it is. I was referring to MySQL in particular, not debian
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Uh... does Covered Code include modifications that third parties
make? If so, then we have a problem.
1.3. Covered Code means the Original Code or Modifications or the
combination of the Original Code and Modifications,
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
OTOH, I don't think there are any revisions you can make to any
sound file that you can't also make with a text editor to a suitable
text dump of a WAV file.
My point is exactly that *no* way of editing sound files will
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A license that says modify and distribute all you want; keep my name; don't
add additional restrictions to the license implicitly requires that you allow
your modifications to be used proprietarily, since it prevents you from adding
the GPL's safeguards
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please
is DFSG free?
I'm not sure that's
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
V.2. Other Products.
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:39:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. If you don't have a pristine
.orig.tar.gz anyway, then it's silly to include unused non-free stuff,
but it's not cause for
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:38:14PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian interprets this License and herein to mean the conditions of
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
artistic reputation or character.
And this is the number one lose for this bogus sort of copyright
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
work, there cannot, logically, be any
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that the distortion or mutilation has to hurt the
honor or reputation of the author. Here in the Netherlands
this is the case if the owner of a house decides to put up
new blinds in a color the architect does not like.
Since people
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:50:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:58:15PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
work,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Substantial modifications are permitted, and may be distributed, at
which point the modifier must either pay to ABC Software Inc the sum
of USD 1,000 for each occurrence of distribution by the modifier, or
grant to ABC Software Inc a permanent,
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Uh... does Covered Code include modifications that third parties
make? If so, then we have a problem.
No moreso than we already have with the GPL; just like with the GPL, if
you
Hi Everyone,
I have written a program that parses the data available here:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/ndc/
and places it into a database.
I am fairly confident that the data itself is public domain
as:
* one organization sells the same data re-packaged for MS
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
I have written a program that parses the data available here:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/ndc/
and places it into a database.
Neat.
My intention is to release a debian package containing Berkely DB
databases that contain the same data as
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to
make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of
those free.
Advertising clauses only need to be there if you are advertising.
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I suppose I could sue the FSF for violating its end of the copyright
assignment contract, but that would be totally counterproductive).
I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
contract, and insist that your content be removed.
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) My interpretation of the GPL is correct, isn't it? I'm fairly certain on
this one.
Yes.
2) Am I being excessively unreasonable to complain to the authors
about this GPL violation if it is actually getting in my way and
making my life
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote:
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*.
Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes.
That's right. You seem to keep
Just noticed another problem:
A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable
copy, represented in a format ... that is suitable for input
to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety
of formats suitable for input to text formatters. ... A copy
that
I'm going to try again... I think somehow, we got off on a tangent of
sheet music which blurs the issue. Ignoring my previous message about
not being able to have sound be a transparent copy at all:
I hope we can agree that:
1) Transparent copies of a document are required for
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:42:18AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually it does. GNU TLS's OpenSSL compatibility layer is licensed
under the GPL, not the LGPL, last time I checked. This would cause
problems for at least some works we distribute.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
contract, and insist that your content be removed.
I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the
agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is
FSF agrees that
40 matches
Mail list logo
