On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:25:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
3) Would anyone be willing to help with souch a complaint?
Send it to the FSF's gpl enforcement team.
I'm lost. Why are we arguing and going to enforcement teams instead
of just offering to host the Knoppix source on some
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 06:37:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:25:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
3) Would anyone be willing to help with souch a complaint?
Send it to the FSF's gpl enforcement team.
I'm lost. Why are we arguing and going to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:25:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
3) Would anyone be willing to help with souch a complaint?
Send it to the FSF's gpl enforcement team.
I'm lost. Why are we arguing and going to enforcement teams instead
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) My interpretation of the GPL is correct, isn't it? I'm fairly certain on
this one.
Yes.
2) Am I being excessively unreasonable to complain to the authors
about this GPL violation if it is actually getting in my way and
making my life
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:41:56AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any
Klaus Knopper:
Is nobody gettng tired of this topic? I thought we already cleared
things up. The written offer is present on each CD, which complies
to the GPL. I have an email from Dave Turner from the FSF stating
that Knoppix IS in compliance with the GPL. Is there anything more
to
Hello everyone,
I think it is time for me to unsubscribe from this list, since the
discussion went into personal interpretations/opinions/beliefs about
the right way to interpret the GPL, rather than bringing new
insights.
As a summary, I hope the fact has been made clear that a written
(and,
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
FTP mirrors try to avoid stuff that is not likely to EVER being used
or downloaded.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is
available via the Internet at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/sources/.
You may find the sources for the
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
FTP
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is
available via the Internet at
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 07:09:45AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU
On 20030428T152631+0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
technically, if you demand that they keep obsolete sources for 3 years
or longer, there would be no mirror left willing to keep old software
that long.
The three-year requirement does not apply if sources are distributed
along the binaries
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:56:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
date of this CD-Rom.
Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution?
So, where can I get the sources of emacs version 1.0?
Who did you get the binaries from,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:48:36AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:56:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
date of this CD-Rom.
Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution?
So, where can I get the sources of emacs version
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any time.
The mirrors are downloading and distributing it without any action
initiated by me. Or magazines publish Knoppix, in some cases even
without asking me.
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any time.
The mirrors are downloading and distributing it without any action
initiated by me. Or magazines publish
than it is worth to sort
them out.
Right. But the majority of programs on Knoppix IS GPL software.
There are very few packages (like Java or Acrobar reader) which are not.
The increase in traffic will, most likely, be minimal.
Unfortunately not. Remember, I am collecting the sources for each
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any
time.
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing source
code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I looked at
http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html#license and found
the following text:
If not otherwise specified, the
On 20030427T095714+0200, Oliver M. Bolzer wrote:
To my knowledge Klaus Knopper has repeatedly stated that he would send
the source to anyone if they sent him the needed number of blank CD-Rs.
IMHO that's a reasonable way to distribute source, though slightly
inconvenient. The blank CD-Rs
Oliver == Oliver M Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman
Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not
distributing source code to GPL packages that they distribute.
In
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 12:40 AM
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Knoppix and GPL
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing
source code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I
looked at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index
of the GPL? Maybe it is a general misinterpretation that the
source has to be available for 3 years, or your are referring to another
version of the GPL (This one is GPL license available from
http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php).
Knoppix has (presumably) not received written offers
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Darryl Palmer wrote:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Darryl Palmer wrote:
Looking at the GPL it has this statement:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 05:54:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Oliver == Oliver M Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oliver On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:39:32AM -0400, Sam Hartman
Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 07:40:58PM -0500, Darryl Palmer wrote:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with
30 matches
Mail list logo
