Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-06 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and separated. This is not the

Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free

2005-04-06 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 05:33:00AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, this text seems to be gone. (There are still some bogus trademark claims on that page--IANAL, but I doubt a trademark allows them to prevent people from using sql-ledger in

Re: kernel firmware status

2005-04-06 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 06:06:34PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: I created a wiki page that contains a list of all drivers that are currently considered undistributable by Debian, the available license information we have for them, and various other comments:

Concerns about works created by the US government

2005-04-06 Thread Sami Liedes
[Please Cc: me when replying] Hello, Generally for free software (and most other purposes) it seems that works created by the US government are usually considered (sometimes effectively) to be in the public domain. I however have some concerns about this. The relevant US law says (title 17,

Re: Concerns about works created by the US government

2005-04-06 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 07:55 am, Sami Liedes wrote: The relevant US law says (title 17, chapter 1, § 105): Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and

Re: Concerns about works created by the US government

2005-04-06 Thread Florian Weimer
* Sami Liedes: This certainly seems to make the works effectively PD in the US; however it almost seems as if that was carefully worded to _not_ place works in the PD, only to make the US government unable to enforce their copyright under the US law. AFAIK, this is indeed the standard

Re: kernel firmware status

2005-04-06 Thread Andres Salomon
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:56:56 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: [...] The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is ... Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open

Re: Concerns about works created by the US government

2005-04-06 Thread Martin Dickopp
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But as a practical matter, I don't believe the U.S. Government really create all that much copyrightable work these days. I find the CIA World Factbook and much of the data (including images) released by NASA quite valuable. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-06 Thread Alan Cox
On Llu, 2005-04-04 at 21:47, Jeff Garzik wrote: Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-) There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware. Firmware being seperate does make a lot of sense. It isn't going away but it doesn't generally belong in kernel now we have