On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though. I'm not sure a court would have much difficulty in
allowing
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 16.[11] There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
| applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright
| holders and/or other parties provide the Program as is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though.
El lunes, 16 de enero de 2006 a las 09:07:42 -0800, Don Armstrong escribía:
The Complete Corresponding Source Code for a work in object code form
means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile,
Good, now even if someone codes a piece of firmware directly in machine
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:49:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about binaries via BitTorrent, source via HTTP? BT would be more
capable than HTTP for many projects' binaries, and HTTP more capable for
source, where a lot
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:05:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
HTTP and FTP sound pretty equivalent to me. I don't think you'd have any
problems finding an expert witness to testify to that. HTTP and rsync
might not be, though.
Hi Anthony!
You wrote:
I read that clause as banning distribution of (a certain class of)
contraband, which is banned already anyway -- probably even to create or
possess, let alone distribute. As such, I'm not actually sure it covers
anything in practice. If that's not correct, and it is
On 1/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In particular read section 4 of the GPL.
It says You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it. And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only way to
On 1/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... not accepting the GPL ...]
So in this case you cannot make copies
You can download copies without accepting the GPL.
(nor modifying) of the software anymore.
And adapt/modify computer programs and make additional copies
under 17 USC 117 from
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a
system
to generate or access
Don Armstrong wrote:
1. Source Code.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. Object code means any non-source
version of a work.
The Complete Corresponding Source Code for a work in object code form
means all the source code needed
* Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060117 02:30]:
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where did the unless that component itself accompanies the
executable go? Is it somewhere else?
It has been eliminated, intentionally. The rationale is to make
things like Debian GNU/Solaris legal
On 17 Jan 2006 10:25:44 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Yeah. So legal mandates like, for example,
http://www.courts.state.va.us/text/scv/amendments/rule_71_75_SC.html
When the communication is in writing, the disclaimer shall be in bold
On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I understand that you are willing to and have posted totally
irrelevant regulations as support for claims that you provide no
direct or plausible indirect support for.
Well, I was just hinting at disbarring Moglen.
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I understand that you are willing to and have posted totally
irrelevant regulations as support for claims that you provide no
direct or plausible indirect support for.
Well, I was
On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 11:44:42 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.
I refrain. Drop an email to http://www.mama-tech.com/. She claimed it.
Drop a note to
Alexander Terekhov writes:
On 17 Jan 2006 11:44:42 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.
I refrain. Drop an email to http://www.mama-tech.com/. She claimed it.
In other words, you want to make claims
On 17 Jan 2006 13:22:19 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... *plonk* and handwaving ...]
Thanks for playing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the
current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on disbarring him
is going to rich the critical mass pretty soon. So he might
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:47:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see a reason why you wouldn't make the source available by bittorrent
too.
Because if only a few people are downloading the source, it's a waste of time.
But it's more intended as an example of is this allowed?, and what I'm
* Bernhard R. Link:
But it lists no conditions that that stuff is in any way free.
When I do not misread it, it would even Microsoft to take any
GPLv3 program, extend it, build an API around the extensions
and distribute it together with their Operating system, only
having to give the source
On 1/17/06, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Bernhard R. Link:
But it lists no conditions that that stuff is in any way free.
When I do not misread it, it would even Microsoft to take any
GPLv3 program, extend it, build an API around the extensions
and distribute it together
* Bas Zoetekouw:
I read that clause as banning distribution of (a certain class of)
contraband, which is banned already anyway -- probably even to create or
possess, let alone distribute. As such, I'm not actually sure it covers
anything in practice. If that's not correct, and it is banning
On 1/17/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
It's interesting that the word they've chosen is contain, not retain.
Well, retain would imply I can't change it, which would be even worse.
No, retain would
Daniel, et. al.:
Referring to the PREAMBLE section of the GPL ::
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4 , the below excerpts (quoted
portions herein) seem to imply that you only have to point the
reciepient to one site where he COULD get it if he so choose. I
use the preamble,
On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a common
sense, practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
which doesn't belong to TC operative
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think you're the third person to say something along those lines: be
thankful, it could be a lot worse. It's still endorsing an extremely
onerous class of restriction, implying that it's acceptable, helpful,
and that the classes of application screwed over by it is
Joe Buck wrote:
As for your claims that Eben Moglen is a repeated violator of the legal
rules of Virginia (you practically call him a habitual liar), presumably
you have some evidence, or are you just engaging in casual libel?
Hmm, you may want to check the libel laws in Germany; I don't have
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
Also, did you read what Eben said? He said nobody knows why; even
if you could find a statute with the requirement that actually applies,
that wouldn't explain *why* anyone thinks that uppercase is clearer.
Well, it would explain why
On 1/18/06, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
As for your claims that Eben Moglen is a repeated violator of the legal
rules of Virginia (you practically call him a habitual liar), presumably
you have some evidence, or are you just engaging in casual libel?
Hmm, you
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:10:38PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
All these objections from Debian folks, and no one has yet noticed the
irony that the type of clause in question (the Affero language) has been
championed by the man who wrote the DFSG, Bruce Perens. Bruce repeatedly
called the ability
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
In
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a wide difference. The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
these restrictions are acceptable. Permissive licenses merely say I
don't care. It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
and either hasn't considered, or doesn't
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go;
patch clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:37:15AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that
to you already?
Personally, I stopped paying attention to what they claim is free and
non-free when they called the GFDL free. I just expect people to go
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on,
and it seems like an obviously
Glenn Maynard writes:
(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently complicated.
If I'm reusing a function from one project
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also prohibits me from
using public
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:55PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
So you're
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Care to post a link to rules of New York?
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on,
and it seems like an
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't
looks astonishingly bad?
So the real reason not
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided
49 matches
Mail list logo
