"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have
to
do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires
source
code availability? How does making the source code availabl
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> > When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > circumven
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:10:46 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Francesco Poli:
[...]
> > I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> > additional requirements to be added. It's *against* the spirit of
> > the GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that new versions would "be
> > s
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
> standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
> interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
> is widely used amon
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
> and depending on the context will contradict themselves.
Well, if clients contradict each other the lawyer has no choice
but to play along...
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking on
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say
> about this clause and its interpretation.
sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
and depending on the context will contradict themselves.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://inv
* Francesco Poli:
>> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
>> author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
>> Notices displayed by works containing it; or
>
> I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> additio
> But, AFAIUI, the purpose of this informational sentence is to comply
> with the GNU GPL v2, which states, in Section 1:
>
> | give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> | along with the Program.
>
> and then includes (by reference to Section 1) this same restriction in
>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Francesco is not a lawyer,
I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why you seem to have
such fun in pointing fingers at other people and repeating "he/
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> > [...]
> > Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> > DFSG#1.
>
> It could, but I don't think thi
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
> > Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> > Francesco Poli worries:
> > > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
> > > interface of my
[cc'd to curiosa because I'm not sure where else it should go and
replies there and cc'd to me, not to -legal, please]
Iain Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is
> because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet ga
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> DFSG#1.
It could, but I don't think this is one we can test in many cases.
If GPLv3 does turn out to have bi
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote:
[...]
> In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were
> worded like this:
>
> This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On
> Debian systems, the latest GPL version is in
> /usr/share/commo
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> Instead, I think we should amend policy in this way:
>
> Packages under a fixed, definite version of the GPL should refer to
> the versioned GPL file in /usr/share/common-licenses.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:21:25AM +0200, Sa
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying
> > > to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended soo
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Santiago Vila:
>
> > + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> > +
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
[...]
> Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> [...]
> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Progr
* Santiago Vila:
> + file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguit
19 matches
Mail list logo
