Oh, wait, you were asking a different question...
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the
terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive,
nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up license
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:48:19AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary -
the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of
the actual license grant made by the author.
Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this description.
Bah, I need sleep, minor nitpick:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:42:33AM -0400, I wrote:
(iii) only covers end-users
(iii) only covers documentation
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:59:28PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Cannot be included, not even in non-free, IMHO. Will violate DFSG #8.
Nothing in non-free is up to DFSG standards.
--
Raul
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:47:01PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
Right: If something needs special permission, it is non-free and can at
most go into non-free. But since non-free is not part of debian (the
distribution), special permission only for distributing it *in* debian
would be useless
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 10:54:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Phrase the proposed restriction in a way that is not specific to
patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is
it still an acceptable restriction?
I think this would be a mistake.
Patents are more
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 04:59:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a question: does this mean that you also grandfather GPL#8?
Um, no. That is a good reason not to have a grandfather clause,
actually. Removed.
You might want to add a general
The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place.
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:56:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'm not
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:55:27PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Must supply source is allowed under DFSG#3, which says under the same
terms as the license of the original software.
Which would allow 2a, 2b and 2c of the GPL as well.
-- for the can't add further restrictions restriction --
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:55:27PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Must supply source is allowed under DFSG#3, which says under the same
terms as the license of the original software.
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 07:48:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Which would allow 2a, 2b and 2c of the GPL
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 06:20:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
You seem to be saying that DFSG#3 allows some restrictions on modification
and that it allows none...
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 06:29:06PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm saying modification and distribution are two different things
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:37:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Do you have any other examples of restrictions on modification that are (and
should be) allowed? Since your premise is _almost_ _any_ license, you
should be able to find some examples in licenses that aren't confused by
DFSG#10.
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:40:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I tend to read it as can not restrict modification at all, except for
legally-required notices (copyright notices, licenses, disclaimers)
and those things explicitly listed in DFSG#4.
Trademarks?
--
Raul
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:36:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Patches and renames are explicitly allowed by DFSG#4. I already mentioned
warranty disclaimers. Must supply source and can't add further
restrictions
are restrictions on distribution, not modification; they don't affect
what
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as
such from the document.
Or for adding a constraint that there be no explicit statement restricting
distribution to any countries.
The problem with striking
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:23:57AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
How about:
10. The following are examples of free software licenses, in accordance
to these Guidelines, and those [[Guidelines?]] shouldn't ever be
interpreted in a way that does conflict with said examples being
considered
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
action taken not involving the covered work?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with
the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, to be clear, you're
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:26:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The problem, here, is that GPL really represents a class of licenses.
That class includes a [currently empty] set of licenses which prevent
distribution in certain countries. That set is non-free, but that
doesn't make the GPL
DFSG#10 does not contain the word all, nor any of its synonyms.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:27:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is completely irrelevant; we're talking about your interpretation
of DFSG#10, not its literal text.
Did I say all some place, or anything like that?
Please
Please stop pretending your interpretation is consensus; it is not.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:19:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Huh?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:40:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You said:
The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:18:02PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
DFSG#10 does not say the GPL used on gcc.
True.
However, that is an example of the GPL.
I don't remember any convincing reasoning that there's an implied all
there. The closest to that was we're more concerned about the
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:31:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The only serious arguments I've seen (and given) for the GPL failing
DFSG#1-9, as actually applied by d-legal, are the changelog and output spam
requirements. Neither of those are relevant to copyleft at all, so this
statement is
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
I agree strongly with this sentiment.
Thanks for expressing it,
--
Raul
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I'd be much more happy if the GNU GPL were ruled DFSG-free on the basis
of DFSG#1-9. That's it.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:52:15PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I agree, but I don't think we should force-fit it by modifying our
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:03:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 is a test to be applied to DFSG 1-9 interpretations. There's no
point in being less strict in the interpretation of DFSG#10 than of the
other clauses.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:14:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Please
What alternate interpretations have any plausibility?
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:46:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
That has already been discussed at length in this thread, so I have to
assume that you're either not actually reading the thread, or that you're
deliberately wasting my time.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
if the GPL is not-quite-free, but it's considered free anyway only
because it's grandfathered by DFSG#10, why cannot the
put_your_favourite_non-free_license_here be grandfathered as well?
Except, it is free.
People have been not
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
cause the modified files to carry prominent notices; it doesn't say the
modified files or loosely associated metadata.
Nit: carry and contain are not the same word.
Furthermore, carry has literally dozens of definitions -- none of
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:25:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Those restrictions include nothing about licensing requirements, and
you've never cited a portion of the GPL which imposes licensing
requirements on undistributed works.
Publishing is different from distribution. GPL 2b
The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified
copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of and which
is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english).
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Wha? An
If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing
the additional code which is being incorporated into the program --
there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and
you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL
Let's go for emacs and openssl. If there is no distribution of
emacs+openssl, then there is no problem. Are you asserting that this
is the case?
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:07:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes. I am asserting that I can combine OpenSSL and Emacs code to
If you like, I can change the nature of the proprietary function so that
it's even more facist.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:56:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It would not change anything.
If the result can be distributed with source and under the GPL, then
it's free. If it cannot,
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here. [...]
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
software.
That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or
may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no
patent licence for no known relevant patents.
It's not clear to me that this patent license is
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for
non-compliance Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the
IBM patent licence terminates if you don't
In the interests of time, let me just state that I agree with most of
what Nathanael Nerode has said about the GFDL.
I think I have a few minor quibbles on secondary points, but most are
not significant enough to be worth discussing.
--
Raul
What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say
it's too tolerant of licensing problems.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK. I would interpret it as meaning must allow most modifications and
derived works.
Unfortunately, the way
Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which
I've overlooked? If so, please quote this.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:41:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
GPL section 2 grants the right to modify and redistribute modified versions
(in source code form), under three
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
in the output from --version, etc.
Raul Miller wrote:
Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
case, I need to find another
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in
a position of strength if software patents are involved.
I don't think I agree. At least, not yet.
In reading over this license, I see a number of clauses designed to
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
For the just read the GPL part, I did (and asked this list for help and
review, but no-one seems to be interested), and I got to the following
(obvious duh) conclusion:
* it does not permit making derived works that combines the
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
Why should this
I suppose there's some question here -- what does a complete description
mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:48:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this:
(C) Humberto Massa 2004
Just
I was looking for a patches only license, and my memory wasn't up to the
job.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:49:53AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Please pick one example and stick with it to the logical conclusion. This
is your third (and fourth) hypothetical GCC combination.
I don't like to make
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And in which jurisdiction can the supplier of Palladium legally forbid
the third party that I give my modified GCC to (and who does not have
any contractual relation with the supplier) from continuing my
development work?
If the functionality
Section 2 allows you to make copies under the terms of section 1, which
requires an appropriate license. The GPL has some specific requirements
on licenses. The work as a whole would included GPL licensed software.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:14:56PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No
I was looking for a patches only license, and my memory wasn't up to
the job. Replace metafont with some software under a patches only
license (or, any license with some restriction not imposed by the GPL
-- a must rename license is probably enough), to see the point I was
trying to get
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you satisfy
GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do not have
the right to put under GPL's terms.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:22:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote
Right -- and if you do that, I have been granted no rights to make copies
of that work.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:23:45PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
That does not follow. You may be granted lots of right. The statement
that says that you have those rights is just not part of the text
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no
patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then
having no patent licence = non-free.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple -- the U.S. patent office
Section 1 also places this requirement on any copies you make.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:12:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Quote me that part. Hint: it isn't here:
Oh? What about this text that you just quoted?
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies
What does this have to do with free software?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Free software licences should not contaminate other software, remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here.
All I see is statements saying
[lots of fascist steps snipped]
How do you modify gcc to support this micropayment functionality while
complying with the GPL?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't know. However, if you somehow manage to make a functional
modification of gcc such that
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 03:04:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Some DD could, then, propose, this important edition to the DFSG:
new DFSG#3, GPL-compatible: Derived Works :: The license must allow any
modification to be made to the original work, generating derived works;
it must also
I wasn't talking about fault.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:54:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
What on earth are you talking about then?
Your agenda seems to be trying to demonstrate that the GPL is not
free enough because it prevents certain kinds of functional
modifications. I am
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 12:31:47AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Of course it does. You claimed, as far as I can tell, that the GPL's
requirement that derived works be available under the GPL's terms is
a restriction on modification; I explained that this is explicitly
allowed by the latter
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:32:59AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
You have at least half a point here. Derived works... are you implying
that if you integrate gcc better with Palladium you will make the
new-gcc a derived work of Palladium?
That is specifically the kind of work I wanted to talk
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you make (with
very limited exceptions, such as the license blurb).
@ 11/05/2004 20:32 : wrote Raul Miller :
Only if the resulting work (including the implementation
Raul Miller wrote:
(Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
you can't do
That also has several solutions -- become a part of the FSF, or provide
a disclaimer describing the issue.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:09:01AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
None of those solve the problem of making the license Free.
Correct -- at the other end of this thread were some
That's specific to that jurisdiction, not a part of a license.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:11:20PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
I said it in other post: Brazilian law is modelled closed on the Berne
convention; possibly other jurisdictions have similar dispositions.
And to some degree, any
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files, in the
output from --version, etc.
Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
case, I need to find another example.
Unfortunately, I'm
Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you
satisfy GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do
not have the right to put under GPL's terms.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
yeah, but as I did not redistribute
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
modified for you hypothetical environment would be non-distributable?
Because it
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
In this case, therefore, it does not restrict my right to distribute
the hypothetical Palladium GCC, because I would give the recipient the
same rights as I got myself.
That runs into several difficulties.
One of which is that
Because it incorporates functionality implemented in proprietary
code.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It cannot do that if it is distributed with source and under the terms
of the GPL.
That's what I've been saying.
I still don't know what you are getting
One of which is that [for the purpose of this hypothesis] you had to
purchase the right to develop using these palladium features.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:51:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Where does your hyphotesis say that?
I just now stated it.
I had tried to make the completely
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:57:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Of course, if I make a derivation that includes code for which I do
not have copyright, I will need the copyright holder's permission to
distribut the result under the GPL.
However, that is completely different from the GPL not
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:24:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
And I explained that your logic only applied to the parts which
were not licensed under the GPL -- not to the parts that are.
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Your counterargument doesn't make sense
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
I think Humberto is correct in his analysis of what makes something
derivative. By the logic of that analysis though, reiserfs can be
distributed even if it is licensed differently from the rest of the kernel
because it is not
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:41:48AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
It's not that contrived [1]. In any case, are you saying that you
don't care whether people can use software to do extreme ironing?
Debian makes sure that terrorists, nuclear bomb makers, wall street
analysts, and the IRS can use
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:16:04AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
More generally, I do believe that there are practical problems created
by the must display credits license. For example, consider a general
purpose OS environment designed for the deaf (where reducing the number
of phonemes spewed
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
my derivate.
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:11:23PM +0100, Henning
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make
arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the
very core of the DFSG.
This is not expressed in any clause of the DFSG, only implied.
--
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make
arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the
very core of the DFSG.
Given that arbitrary functional modifications would include illegal
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The point of the sentence is that the GDFL as applied to the GNU
manual requires me to make a factually incorrect claim. I agree that
it is tangential what this claim is precisely, but I had to spell it
out because you seemed to
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your copy of the DFSG must be missing clause 3.
| 3. Derived Works
|
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
| the original
Given that arbitrary functional modifications would include illegal
activities
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It does. A license that tries to incorporate you must follow the law
clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:17:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Except for preserving copyright/warranty notices, the license should
not restrict how users modify the software. If a user modifies the
software in an illegal way (whatever that might mean -- presumably
in some way such that
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:39:20PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Then I repeat: It is factually inaccurate that the FSF makes money
from selling hardcopies of the derivate we are speaking about.
What's to prevent them from doing so?
--
Raul
So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which
have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's
palladium?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:13:13AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Yes.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
both the freeness and inaccuracy problems. Obviously, if the license is
not free, it can require you to jump through as many hoops as it wants
in order to get something you can distribute.
It can, though we might not want to
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nothing prevents them from doing so. That, however, does not affect
the *fact* that, for whatever reasons, they do not *actually* do
so. Hence a claim that they do is *factually incorrect*.
I'm very dubious about this concept.
That requirement is explicitly stated in DFSG3:
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:26:17AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
We don't require the
O Martes, 11 de Maio de 2004 ás 13:09:12 -0400, Raul Miller escribía:
The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no
matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of
other users of derivatives.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:47:58PM +0200, Jacobo
The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no
matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of
other users of derivatives.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
And that specifically was not what you were describing.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:01:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
That is a non-solution. Telling a lie and then saying, oops, the
above statement is a lie, but a previous author requires me to tell
it will (1) not make the lie go away, (2) help nobody, and (3) make
everyone involved look
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:51:05PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Hi Raul. I'm trying to understand your argument, in this one you lose
me, time after time: when is forbidden by de GPL making copies of one's
derived works? I know it's forbidden to distribute such copies under
other license,
For example: you can't take code from gcc and code from metafont and
combine them to build a new compiler -- at least not under the
current licenses of those programs.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
It's not forbidden to make copies, just to redistribute
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
distributed work.
I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction, for the context I
was
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:19:26PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I believe you are mistaken. I can make that combination, but the
result is not distributable.
If you can show me how making such copies is permitted, I'd be very
interested in reading what you have to say.
For now, I'll
People without proper palladium licenses would not have the rights
required by the gpl.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Why not?
Because palladium is a proprietary work, and it's more than just an OS.
I'll grant that if the changes were limited to what was
And calling a statement which is true a lie doesn't do anyone any
good either.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The statement is NOT TRUE!
It's interesting that you profess that your low tolerence for ambiguity
makes your position correct.
Your entire
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
As a rough idea, imagine if gcc were made to support special keywords or
control files to make it easier to build programs which use palladium's
proprietary encryption and digital rights management facilities object
model
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:50:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The DFSG requires that it be possible to make and distribute _all_
derived works based on the original, as long as such works can be
distributed under the terms of the original license (ignoring the patch
clause DFSG4 for the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
distributed work.
I don't think this is a very
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:51:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
DFSG 3 states that The license must allow modifications and derived
works.
Yes.
If you read that as some modifications and derived works,
then there must be some qualification for which ones, and no such
qualification is present
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that the GPL applies only when a notice is contained in the
work,
That is not true. For example, I have next to me a watercolor
painting licensed under the GPL. The work itself does not contain a
notice; rather, there is a tag next
601 - 700 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
