Steve Langasek wrote:
I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate.
I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret each php
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
web session as a single execution of the program, you don't get to
require a copyright notice on *every* page
Let me point out that just as Debian doesn't get to demand that the
GFDL be changed, so also the FSF does not have a role in determining
the interpretation of Debian's standards.
We all recognize this; I acknowledged it explicitly here a few days
ago.
Have you simply ignored the explanations...
An insulting question like that doesn't deserve a response,
but I will answer anyway.
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases
Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
solution by having a DFSG for documentation ?
You would also need to amend the Social Contract to change 1. Debian
will remain 100% Free Software which would no longer be
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:59:53AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 12:13:06AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
web session as a single execution of the program, you don't get to
require a copyright
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 22:04, James Miller wrote:
To date, I'm not aware of any FOSS related cases, but
perhaps SCO, Novell and IBM will provide something for us
in this area?
Personally, I doubt much of interest will come out of SCO vs. IBM.
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 14:58, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
And even the FSF
will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB
manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then
the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts.
No, the FSF will
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it in order to give themselves an
ability to share that
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:37:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of
documentation and software seems to not be the same.
Doesn't the GNU FDL invite
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:25:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Hello, ...
I came on a program that is distributed under the GPL with the addition
of the following exception :
Derivative works must not remove the original author's copyright
notices, name or comments from source code and
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
web session as a single execution of the program, you don't get to
require a copyright notice on *every*
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
the sole motivation for this policy,
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:25:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I came on a program that is distributed under the GPL with the addition
of the following exception :
Derivative works must not remove the original author's copyright
notices, name or comments from source code and
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
This Open Software License (the License) applies to any original
work of authorship (the Original Work) whose owner (the
On Monday 02 June 2003 13:16, Joey Hess wrote:
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
sounds like a fairly straightforward BSD like license with a little more
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 19:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 13 Mai 2003 11:54, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the problem here is that the source code of sample data
is more sample data. These samples might again require their
sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous.
Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that deliver
content to anyone other than You is equivalent to distribution of the
software.
I agree strongly; in a networked world all software potentially
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
You. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You
agree that any External Deployment by You shall be deemed a
distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms of this
License, as
24 matches
Mail list logo
