Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found in
On 10596 March 1977, Pierre Machard wrote:
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
some parts of the licence)
Hi,
I don't know if you're aware of the recent adoption in the First
Chamber of a worrisome amendment about distribution of (at least) P2P
clients. This was inserted in a transposition of the EUCD directive :
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My standard ssl-rejection template for that is:
Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
stored anywhere public? Are they kept in sync with
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html ?
Can you link from that to
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
Thank you very much for working on this.
In order to avoid repackaging as much as possible once done, we would
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any
file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we
flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files
in etc/ have no explicit license.
Nathanael Nerode writes:
Package: cpp (standard; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.) [gcc-defaults/1.30 ;
=] [add/edit comment]
23 [ ] [NONFREE-DOC:UNMODIFIABLE] cpp: contains non-free
manpages
Package: cpp-4.0-doc (required; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.)
[gcc-4.0/4.0.2-9 ;
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
How exactly is a brick wall not technological?
I think the
On 10597 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
stored anywhere public?
Nope.
Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/legal/ please? I'll
put a link back when I remember how.
Most rejections are free form text (for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[META: This is a cross-post to ibpp-discuss and debian-legal. I'd like
to give direct discussion a chance, since I am rather busy and can't
mediate in a timely fashion]
Olivier, below is another comment about the new license.
When answering, pleace
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Does the term technical measures as used in GFDL 2's you may
Don't you mean 1.2?
That should have a section in there: GFDL, Section 2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
olive wrote:
Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML
file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies
(as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is
not a generic text editor.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice
Adam McKenna wrote:
Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use?
Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several
computers).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Saunders wrote:
and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads
that are still active (I'll follow the 3 day rule [1] from now on).
May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you
summarize them as something along the lines of:
[Name] brought up [issue, w/ issue
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't
simply be ignored
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed (linking triggers GPL-incompatibility) mind? I just
wonder. hahaha
regards,
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools package
with
#include hallo.h
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +, John Watson wrote:
On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With out DRM,
music or other media type content could not be legally made available over
the Internet.
This is false. Without DRM, certain greedy and immoral content
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +, John Watson wrote:
On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With
out DRM, music or other media type content could not be legally
made available over the Internet.
This is false. Without
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license? See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for details.
The CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed)
and
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
Can we just fork from a version of the build system which did not
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, John Watson wrote:
I have been reading up regarding the new GPL version 3 and how it
will restrict the usage of DRM, however during the research I do get
conflicting stories regarding the objectives of this license.
One aim is to prevent companies such as Sony to use DRM
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
In #350739, the
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have
to be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't
interesting because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can
therefore do
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is not a derivative work of the GPLed
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism.
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
not apply.
Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no
I would much much rather use a Free software (ie GPL) DRM program than
a proprietary one, because as we know, content providers *are not*
going to give us open content or content without DRM. Open content is
not, in my view, an issue like Free Software is, while DRM is a
restriction that the GPL
It also contains a file whose location can't be legally changed. In my
opinion it has always been non-free since the clauses were added. It's
not really GPL.
andrew
On 3/19/06, Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that
the preamble could have had legal effect.)
andrew
On 3/19/06, Måns
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
about device naming.
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is not
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this argument to any segment of sourcecode in the
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If that is the case, wouldn't the simplest course of action be simply
to strip the build system from the tarball and replace it with a free
one written by the maintainer?
Oops, missed where Don mentioned this earlier in thread. Sorry!
Benjamin
signature.asc
Raul Miller writes:
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
not apply.
Can you elaborate on where
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
A work can't be derived from another work without including some
piece of it
This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
generated by a work) in another work can make that work a derivative
work of the first work.
Is a printed book a
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so
long as such new copy or
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely distributable by Debian.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian.
No red
46 matches
Mail list logo
