I have a question somewhat related to something mentioned here a short
while ago.
If someone releases a song in MIDI form under the GPLv2, and I use
non-GPL'd tools (e.g. a shareware licence) and royalty-free instrumental
samples to produce a high-quality WAV version of the original MIDI, can
I
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the CDDL
have never been accepted in main.[1]
star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:40:25PM +0100, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
If someone releases a song in MIDI form under the GPLv2, and I use
non-GPL'd tools (e.g. a shareware licence) and royalty-free instrumental
samples to produce a high-quality WAV
Michael Pobega wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:40:25PM +0100, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
If someone releases a song in MIDI form under the GPLv2, and I use
non-GPL'd tools (e.g. a shareware licence) and royalty-free instrumental
samples to produce a high-quality WAV version of the original MIDI,
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1]
star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
star |
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
CDDL have never
Anthony Towns writes:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under
Hi all,
a new Last Call Draft of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 31 May
2007 by the FSF.
The full text of this fourth draft can be read at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html
My comments on the draft follow.
I will send them to the FSF public consultation system RSN (since they
Andrew Sidwell wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. That last paragraph was meant to
indicate WAV files which were derived from MIDI files via use of
non-free soundfonts, not the original MIDI file itself.
The DFSG would require that the soundfont license be DFSG free in
order for
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't really give you legal advice, but if I were you, I'd include
with the computer media containing the binary packages that you've
installed along with the corresponding source code.
Ok, I will probably include a CD with the sources, because this
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions/
--
ciao,
Marco
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
and to the best of my knowledge, works
* Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070602 19:14]:
It's not like there aren't DDs who feel that it isn't DFSG free; Steve
Langasek and myself have consistently argued against it, and I doubt
we're the only two.
Count me in. I don't feel comfortable with choose-of-venue at all.
reopen 350624
thanks
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster
did not approve this, because the work when originally
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
a new Last Call Draft of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 31 May
2007 by the FSF.
The full text of this fourth draft can be read at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html
My comments on the draft
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:12:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this back; it's almost certain that ftpmaster
did not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 02, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
s/arguments/opinions/
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:12:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Actually, I must take this
I am packaging MyServer (http://bugs.debian.org/288655) and have a
question about the license in one file:
/* MyServer
Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 The MyServer Team
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Paul Cager wrote:
The content may not be modified via excerpt or otherwise
with the exception of additional citations such as described
above without prior consent of Paul Hsieh.
This seems to disallow modification, which is decidedly not DFSG free.
On 26/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Oops, sorry. I forget. Other
Thanks again, Francesco, for a thorough coverage of this latest GPLv3
draft.
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship
(not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more
neutral term than the Program. Something
Michael Bode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, I will probably include a CD with the sources, because this is
going to be some kind of 'embedded' PC with a reduced (i.e. no
typical desktop) system and only a CF card and no hard disk or
optical drive.
That's the simplest way to satisfy the GPL
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:13:56AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
debian-devel re-added.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM
Paul Cager [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 The MyServer Team
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
they need to be
The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL, and
On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship
(not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more
neutral term than the Program. Something like the Work would
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:10:19AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice
of venue is in place.
That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
How you feel about a license isn't any more important than the other
people's feelings that happen to be opposite to you. The above isn't
analysis, it's grandstanding.
My mistake; I assumed the references I provided earlier to the
analysis done in 2005
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases.
Contracts and licenses in general short-circuit the normal determination
of rights under common
30 matches
Mail list logo
