On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:
A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
/usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is
URL: http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml .
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:48:09 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
But not basic logic about permission to modify. Instead, basic
logic about what do trademark restrictions mean.
I don't see that trademark prohibitions can affect whether a GPLed
program is DFSG free or not.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004
I think you're mistaken in calling the trademark issue a restriction
on modification. It is a restriction on the manner of distribution of
certain modifications. I can make whatever changes I like, but I may
not distribute them under the mark Abiword.
Your substantive argument, however, is
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:43:16 +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: No need to Cc: (or To:) me, as I'm a debian-legal subscriber.
Instead, I'm Cc:ing Carlos Laviola, since he asked to be Cc:ed
(or did you subscribe in the meanwhile, Carlos?)
Still haven't subscribed,
I am developing a very CPU-intensive, open-source error-correcting code.
The intention of this code is that you can split a large ( 5GB)
file across multiple packets. Whenever you receive enough packets that
their combined size = the file size, you can decode the packets to
recover the file,
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some precompiled object files for i386? As long as the build
target is
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
I am developing a very CPU-intensive, open-source error-correcting code.
The intention of this code is that you can split a large ( 5GB)
file across multiple packets. Whenever you receive enough packets that
their combined size = the file size, you can decode the
Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Whether your university owns a license or not does not really affect
Debian. icc
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some
(CC to John Cowan since most of this response is directed at him, and there's
no indication that he's on this list.)
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:39:31PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the GNU GPL, but I (and the author of the AFL) believe this to be
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml
compiler) some
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me -- at least in the context of what Debian distributes and
calls Main -- that
Martin Braure de Calignon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat, Oct 09, 2004:
I wanted to know if the binary files in the
eagle-usb-{utils,data,source} package are free.
When I get the source of the package (apt-get source), there is a
LICENSE file in the root directory which says that the package is GPL.
Loïc Minier wrote:
Martin Braure de Calignon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat, Oct 09, 2004:
I wanted to know if the binary files in the
eagle-usb-{utils,data,source} package are free.
When I get the source of the package (apt-get source), there is a
LICENSE file in the root directory which says that the
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
myself: what would
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
I don't believe you can. In order to distribute software under the GPL,
we must provide the preferred form for modification of that software,
which is the source. From your description, it sounds like such source
exists but is not being
Loïc Minier wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
I don't believe you can. In order to distribute software under the GPL,
we must provide the preferred form for modification of that software,
which is the source. From your description, it sounds like such source
exists but
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me -- at
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free compiler. The fact that you can also compile the
sources with a free
[ Stop Cc:ing me please, I read this mailing list. ]
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
This argument has been made before, and the clear consensus is that
firmware is software; this is even clearer than the situation over
documents and other data, which were also decided
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue, Oct 19, 2004:
The binary blob is needed as well as you
need to talk
Sorry, copy-paste problem, forget that half-sentence.
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If you bother to read it, you'll see We will never make the system
require the use of a non-free component.
It
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
Hi,
I'm currently (with our team at eagle-usb.org) working with Sagem and
Analog Digital, Inc. in order to get a new version out with newer
functionalities...
Let's stop that current thread that has already happened and get to work
together. The point is to find an agreement that would satisfy as
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Loïc Minier wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
This argument has been made before, and the clear consensus is
that firmware is software; this is even clearer than the situation
over documents and other data, which were also decided (on a
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can't take the source, compile it with a proprietary compiler and
upload the result to main, because in order to create that package,
you need a non-free
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
No sourcecode bits:
http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20021106.222149.24f92b22.en.html
Quite interesting, although related to code running on the host, most
of the thread is interesting.
In the context of DSP Binaries:
On 2004-10-18 22:58:58 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sublicensing is an uncommon practice in free software licenses, so
we
(debian-legal) don't have a very good understanding of what it is, how
it works, and why it's used. Any input you can provide would be
helpful.
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:02:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
it says the package in main must be buildable with tools in main.
That is still the case. The fact
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words are:
In addition, the packages in _main_
* must not require a package
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
Exact words are:
In
32 matches
Mail list logo
