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 (includ
> >>It's not forbidden to make copies, just to redistribute the copies of
> >>the derived works.
> >What's your basis for making this statement?
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:18:36AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> copyright law in the US (17 USC +) AFAIK does not regulate *using*
> software or oth
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 ta
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 03:25:16AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No. If I create any variation of the context, then the statement
> immediately stops being true when placed in the variated context.
Except that you can easily create varied contexts where the
statement is true.
> > Here's another
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:21:53AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I was not proposing "make gcc work on that OS", I was proposing functional
> > modifications to GCC to make it integrate better with that environment.
>
> There is nothing in the GPL that forbids functional modifications to
> GCC
> > 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 09:35:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No.
Eh?
> It disallows changes to the *license terms
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:02, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:05PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> "keep intact" does not mean the same as "unmodified".
But we're still talking about a case where not all derived works are
allowed.
> And the terms of Section 1 are that you must "conspicuously and
> appropriately publish" notices of th
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> (Note: The license blurb is actually required to be maintained by copyright
> law, not by the license itself.)
The license itself also explicitly states this as a requirement.
> > Only if the resulting work (including the implementation
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 encrypt
> 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 t
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
> 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
&g
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 mo
> 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 ma
> > 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 entir
> > 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
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 li
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
> > 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 redist
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
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
> > 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 describin
> 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, 200
> 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 requ
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.
> > 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 05:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrot
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 dis
> > 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:
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
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
> > 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
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 origina
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
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 02:16:35PM +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.
--
R
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
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 n
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 u
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 Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:33:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> I think you're agreeing with me. I can't make it a simple red circle
> or green square. I have to spit out the credits _and_ the
> circle/square.
No, the point here is that this is a bad example.
It's more contrived than extreme i
I'm tying a number of loose quasi-threads together here.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:22:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> (I think we must understand DFSG broadly, not narrowly, otherwise it'd
> allow things like 'you can change this software only for localization
> purposes')
I agree that
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents, and
> that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
> the work is DFSG-non-free.
And we have the same problem with "patches-only" licenses.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:32:32PM -0400, I wrote:
> In retrospect, the biggest problem with that proposal was that it made
> no provisions for release management.
Or, more properly, transition management.
--
Raul
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even
> indicated what GR 2004-003 was going to do to ajt.[1][2]
...
> [Not that anyone was expecting the reaction that it got, but we knew
> what it was going to do rega
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:42:53PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> No. Cover texts has to go on the cover.
> >
> > Of the GFDL licensed component, not on the work as a whole.
>
> Ummm, what? Have you read the first sentence of GFDL 3?
Have you read the first paragraph of section 1?
If so,
> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentati
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
> rendering the document undistributable.
If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
But that's not a DFSG issue.
--
Raul
ctions must be off-topic
> >> probably just makes the DFSG 3 problems worse: It also limits derived
> >> works to not covering certain topics (or, at least makes their status
> >> *very* unclear if they do cover those topics).
On May 9, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrot
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:10:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > >> **The library itself would be GPL.**
...
> But only if those are non-commercial... I think I understand what you
> want, some of the extra LGPL freedoms, but in a narrower way. You can
> make it a GPL'd with exceptions, like
> On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > [A] These would have to be factual i
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >>Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
> >>INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
> >&
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Some of the inaccuracies I recall from the last GFDL debate included the
> address of the FSF in the GNU Emacs manual's Invariant sections, if the FSF
> moves.
...
> While not forbidding additional invariant sections, the only way to
> "c
Richard Stallman wrote:
> > You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
> > really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
> > larger combined work.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Your silly claims like "If a.o i
> >Just scratching the surface, ...
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:15:40AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> You eagerly imagine problems where there are none. mkreiserfs does not
> specify any font or color, it lets bash do that. Adhere to the spirit of
> the license and you will be ok.
I'm thinking abo
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
> INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
> consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you
> must put the cov
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It is a factual accuracy that my derivate is "a GNU manual".
The key word here seems to be "is".
Your derivative would *contain* a part of a gnu manual.
> It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
> m
> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
> by the FSF require the c
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we
> > consider free. This true, even though the GPL contains the following
> > statements:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:56:50PM -0400, Glenn
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (I'm also not convinced that DFSG#10 talks about the text of the license
> rather than the terms. I tend to find that as DFSG#10 is so vague, doesn't
> actually place any requirements on freedom, and that there is nothing
> approachi
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:25:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Nor does it say "all derived works".
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You're free to offer alternate interpretations, but showing that they're
> valid interpre
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
> > considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of text
> > in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the
> > oft-i
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
[B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibi
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:32:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The latter (clauses 4b and 4i) fails the Chinese Dissident test.
Here's the language in question:
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modifi
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The exception is in 17 USC 117(a); it allows copying by the _owner of
> a copy_ if it is either "an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program" or a backup copy.
Which, in the context of the GFDL covers a lot of grou
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the
> caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
Loading a register might also also constitute copying, but in the
U.S. that's already co
> > They are not exempt.
> >
> > They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG
> > puts on programs do not apply to licenses.
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:13:24AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to b
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> main; I do not see why license texts should be exempt from the current
> DFSG.
They are not exempt.
They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG
puts on programs do not apply to licenses.
--
Raul
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right to
> distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They
> just aren't enforced terribly often against people who don't distribute,
> bec
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The short of the long is that Reiser would have a significant chance
> (although not complete certaincy) of winning a suit against a user who
> modified the software in the way that Reiser does not like - even if
> the user had reci
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:28:27PM -0500, Alex Roitman wrote:
> Now that I read the Draft Debian Position Statement put together on the
> page of Manoj Srivastava, I think we'd like to change the way our docs
> are licensed.
>
> What would the debain-legal people suggest we use for the documentati
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:59:23AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> The kernel portion is GPL V2, this is the progs license.
Does this mean that the reiser progs are merely aggregated with the
kernel, and that there is no functional relationship?
[Because the GPL does provide an explicit exception
> >> feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
> > Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not
> > software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'.
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> In a nutshell, ignori
s for the blind -- what volume must these credits be
played at? What speech rates are ok to use? What quality of rendition
to phonemes is required?
Just scratching the surface, ...
--
Raul Miller
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:06:37AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Really? How does that give any rights regarding the GFDL "file"? You may
> have the limited right, under copyright law, to make the copies which are
> necessary to run "chmod", but that doesn't help you when it comes to the
> cop
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed
> binaries.
Where the GFDL is used to license programs, it's not something that we
can distribute under the DFSG. [As this could require us to not fix
secu
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:12:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "Make or distribute" is the biggest problem here. If it said "make and
> distribute", you might be correct. As it is actually written, it requires
> that you not place specific technical obstacles in the way of people
> reading o
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:56:23AM +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> Indeed, that's what I tought but it is strange to obfuscate script code
> and I don't think that be encouraged. Someone using moosic is not
> running out of space.
Note that reducing the amount of space required at runtime tends to
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:18:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> You really need to look at an "as amended" copy of the act. One such
> copy is at http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm
Thanks, that's a good reference, and the changes from the version I was
looking at were... rather extensive.
How
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different
people]
> On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >"obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
> > you make or di
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way.
> For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> under GPL.
After thinking about a number of scenarios, I don't think that this
would work as a for
s lawyering" like the above? That is, an example
> > showing that the different interpretation is meaningful. (I think the
> > lack of one is why this is somewhat difficult to discuss.)
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:57:14AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Sure -- imagine that there
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:39:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate
> > the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter?
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:31:38AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
&
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and
> > > > derived
> > > > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
> >
> > On Sun, Ma
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Can you point me at some jurisdiction where such copying is
> > disallowed?
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I have been told that the UK is one such jurisdiction, but I'm by no
> means expert (or
> > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't think this is a useful interpretation. "The only modification
> which may be dist
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
> rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
Ah, this is key.
I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
programs in such a jurisd
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:59:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [Raul: As I assume you're not subscribed to -legal, I'm taking the
> liberty of Cc:'ing you.]
Thanks.
I should be subscribed now, but I was not previously. I appreciate
the attention.
On Sun, 02 May 20
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must
> > > be
> > > renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
> On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
> When I read the usage terms for the Open Use Logo, it seems to me that a
> part of it "may be used to refer to Debian" (and no explicit permission
> given for ANY other usage) could be interpreted as breaking DFSG
> 8, "License can't
> >>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
> Raul> distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
> Raul> code. The question asked was whether i
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The restrictions that come into force under the GNU FDL in the "Copying
> in Quantity" section, and the restrictions that are always in force for
> "standard (paper) book form" under the OPL look very, very similar to
> me.
copyin
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:42:29PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Years ago when I satrted coding elisp and wasn't concerned about
> licensing issues, I thought I was okay as long as I didn't load
> anything via 'require'. But obviously I was using other people's
> copyrighted code way before t
> > However, even if there are no non-GPLed implementations of the interfaces,
> > a trivial call to buffer-substring would not be worth worrying about.
> > If the code in question falls under fair use, copyright isn't an issue:
> > you need something substantial enough to be considered a copyright
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
You said:
> > Anyways: it's legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license.
> > However, it's not legal to distribute GPLed emacs with such code if that
> > code is intended to be used with emacs to implement some program.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
> was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it. [And, what is it that you want documentation on?]
Look at the situation this way: the
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:43:44PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
> Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
> protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
> too.
Why is this eve
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Well, bash at least is on the CD with the C library.
I asked RMS about this, last time you brought it up.
He said he wanted to check with his lawyers, to be sure he was answering
correctly, and hadn't gotten back to me.
I've asked hi
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others
> may have been private), that it is OK to license the software GPL as
> long as the used APL libraries are part of the distribution on which
> it is installed, ri
801 - 900 of 1451 matches
Mail list logo
