On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
This is due to some restrictions with the definition of public domain
that the government uses for
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040201 22:28]:
It would still be better if the disclaimer disclaimed implied warranties only
to, say, the fullest extent permitted by law. :-) This presumably isn't
strictly necessary, because the usual interpretation of illegal warranty
disclaimers
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:47:45PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:14:30PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
non-US/non-free. crypto-in-main is crypto-in-*main*, not
crypto-in-non-free. That's part of the reason why we still have non-US.
This is due to some restrictions with
On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it
does not seem there is a
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The opinion of the XFree86 project is irrelevant. It is the licenses
on GPLed works that would be violated, not the license on XFree86, so
it's the interpretation of the authors of the GPLed works that counts.
I don't quite see how this is so. If the
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
must carry the same restrictions as those in the library,
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, paul cannon wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational
view that dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that
library, not creating a derived work from it.
Considering
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's just the Debian folks that believe the faintest whisper from
the FSF as were it the word of God.
You must have slept through the GFDL discussions then.
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far
Walter Landry wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 06:40:59PM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person (the User)
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in
On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not
creating a derived
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
functionality. Should these be different
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
dynamically linking to a library is only _using_
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law
is immoral.
There's no caselaw that I am aware of covering this particular issue
defining precisely where a derived work
On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so their
published opinion probably would count.
The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
contradicting
Måns Rullgård wrote:
You are definitely not wrong. It's just the Debian folks that believe
the faintest whisper from the FSF as were it the word of God.
The FSF have an opinion that's based on some amount of legal advice.
Unless we have either the at least the same amount of legal advice or a
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitimately affect dynamic
linking every time a GPL
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so
their published opinion probably would count.
The copyright owner does not have the right to
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitimately
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However,
neither does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
whatsoever.
You seem to forget that the GPL and the FSF's interpretation have been
researched rather carefully by its
On 2004-02-03 00:46:13 + Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However, neither
does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
whatsoever.
You're making claims with no backing. In my position, would you believe Måns
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:49:41AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Been there, done that, learned something about GNU zealots. I'll try
to stay out of this thread from now on.
Why do you insist on calling d-legal people GNU zealots? The fact that
this is at least the third time in two days that
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
exemption anyway?
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
operating system exemption anyway?
No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
package.)
[In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
meet the OS
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:35:39PM -0500, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
exemption anyway?
Debian can never use this exception, due to the ... unless that
component itself accompanies the executable clause. (You can use
a GPL
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
operating system exemption anyway?
No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
package.)
[In general,
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
package.)
[In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
meet the OS exemption.]
This really
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's
something that we have historically considered to be
This is a message from the Wesleyan E-Mail Virus Protection Robot
--
You sent an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject Test on Mon Feb 2
23:55:21 2004 that was
infected by a virus. We have deleted this file and have not
29 matches
Mail list logo
