On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
3. FSF's ownership of parts of the kernel means FSF is one of the
copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel.
You apparently don't know what the copyright in a collective work
is and most likely you were
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,:
My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him
that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his
unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or
other disciplinary action)
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,:
My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him
that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his
unprofessional conduct (hopefully
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You
couldn't
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain,
But the only source we have for that seems to be the article by Knuth
that you cite (I have also searched the web without getting anywhere
else):
Some searching around led to an
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Later in the file, it is written:
,
| If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
| `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
| for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
| A special
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
order to gain access to that work.
I wrote:
Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
technological measure which effectively controls access to any
work.
Walter Landry wrote:
Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
Well, no, but I think it is in fact true.
It is decided by external
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
can't be written (if you write software for an
* Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060119 17:15]:
Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People
buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the
GPL is to always send a second CD with the sources.
Now, here's another idea. Suppose that when the
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next
Moglen:
I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the
kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are
apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden. The
blobs--though they are
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next
Moglen:
I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the
kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are
apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that
calls POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in
contrib.
Hmmm. The description certainly didn't give that indication, nor did
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:18:06AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next
Moglen:
I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the
kernel. If the kernel's terms were
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:49:09AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I think that effective does not mean perfect. Having a police
force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from
perfect.
A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software
is not imperfect. If I
Frank Küster wrote:
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on SEARCH trademarks,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is
not imperfect. If I post my root password to this list, it is not
an imperfect but still effective security mechanism; it is useless
and defeated.
But, as you note below, that's
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
If you want to be charitable, you might say that effective here is
being used in the sense of effectively, it's a security mechanism.
But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being
used in a way that requires
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 00:31 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I hope some volunteers to install it and check, so that a serious bug
can be filed against kpovmodeler, if necessary...
Since I used to play with povray before becoming involved with debian.
I've just installed kpovmodeler 3.5.0-3, and
I think that KPovModeler was developed with the intention that you
have POV-Ray installed. It will work fine without it, but it can only
save KPMs and POV files, and at the moment there is no other software
that can read it.
andrew
On 1/21/06, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat,
On 1/21/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster wrote:
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
21 matches
Mail list logo
