On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:23:30PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
In the HC (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should'
do this and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as
'must' then they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also
be interpreted as a
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:13:26AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
Well, *I* don't think the forced-advertising clause is Free.
I do realize that I'm
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:20:11PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Branden Robinson said to you:
Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
Project's standards?
I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting.
I hope not. I meant the question literally, and
At 09:13 PM 5/27/2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am assuming that all files without copyright statements are
effectively under the OpenLDAP Public License.
As Executive Director of The OpenLDAP Foundation, let me state
that I believe your assumption to be incorrect. OpenLDAP
Software is a
Perhaps the best thing to do is contact someone from the Wikipedia and
ask them to summarize the situation in a mail to RMS, and relate to him
whether or not they felt burnt, or perceived a threat of inconvenience
large enough to cripple their project.
They can do that if they
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution
which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement.
The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be
copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which
Many thanks to everybody for your responses. As I understand, I'll have
to remove this code from argouml or move argouml to non-free... or ask
Sun to change their license ;-)
Am I right?
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Steven,
The OpenLDAP Foundation believes it the Regents' statement grants a
license to redistribute derived works and is confident that the University,
who is quite aware of our actions (as they actively participate in them),
does not consider our actions to infringe on their rights. You are
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
packages like it.
Not quite -- I'd prefer to
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:19 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
All of those --
TCP, HTTP, and DEB -- are generic formats.
.deb isn't. There is, AFAIK, only one implementation.
At the very least, alien and dpkg deal with it; I believe there are
others.
If I remember correctly,
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 14:25 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work.
Well, from carefully reading the GPL, this appears to be what it says.
A quote:
a work based on the
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 12:22 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
First, any interface which could be used by humans is a method of
operation. This is essentially all interfaces.
That's a good question. I think the decision only covers interfaces
that humans need to use to use the
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
Unfortunately, other people purporting to act on behalf of the FSF do.
Did they really claim to be speaking for the FSF, or were they just
expressing support for the FSF? Anyone can do the latter, but we did
not ask anyone to speak for the FSF about this issue on this list.
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
so while RMS's reasoning may be to some degree inconsistent here
(advocating against one inconvenient license and for another),
This
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 09:35:29PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The purpose of the package was to provide an accurate, LGPL'd version of
the ISO 3166, 639 and 4217 standards., along with translations into the
various languages supported by Debian.
I was not aware of the copyright notice
17 matches
Mail list logo
