On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:50:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
i am going to try to take a stab at it:
hardware: physical computing devices
software: logical information stored by hardware devices that can be
used for computation.
this allows us to break software into three (or
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:44:19PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I sometimes read in Debian Weekly News about discussions on debian-legal
about problems with packaging perl modules for Debian because of the
vagueness of the licensing terms
Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:50:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
% snip of definitions %
Pretty good. I would have tried to phrase it slightly differently, but you
have hit the nail on the head.
If it's represented essentially as a sequence of 1s and 0s in a
Jakob Bohm, on 2003-08-02, 14:52, you wrote:
Glad to help out
Matthew Palmer, on 2003-08-03, 10:06, you wrote:
In short, I see nothing DFSG-non-free in the licence.
Thank you both for your views,
Joerg
--
Joerg joergland Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD
* Tore Anderson
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an
old adventure game:
~~~
Preamble:
Basically, give this game away, share it with your friends.
Don't remove this Readme, or
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
modified under the applicable copyright law and
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
modified under the applicable copyright law
John Goerzen wrote:
1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
software benefit our users?
Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and software means
0s and 1s -- so nearly everything Debian distributes except the
physical CDs) in Debian; as a user,
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 11:36, Claus Färber wrote:
Of course, someone can add another invariant section to the manual. But
this is actually a licence change, possibly making the new version of
the manual non-free (although it still uses the GFDL as a template for
its licence). This
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 08:05, Tore Anderson wrote:
As a few has pointed out, this does not allow for modifying and
redistributing modified versions. I believe the only chance I have
to make the copyright holder accept such a clause, would be through
making it pass DFSG clause 4.
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:24:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:50:13 -0700, John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:38:43 -0700, John H Robinson, IV
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
as a mostly passive observer at
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about
...not cutting out all the definition alternatives that don't support
your position?
The following has little to do with Debian, but it is related to how
documentation should be licensed, which was discussed here recently.
I was recently asked to suggest a licence for some course material
(explanations, exercises, etc) that would allow people to adapt and
reuse the material and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jakob Bohm wrote:
Here is my classification, which handles this better:
A piece of information, whether in analog, digital or other
form, is a program if it is intended to directly control the
actions of a computer, other than by simply holding a pure
14 matches
Mail list logo
