[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Well, yes. It's just something that a few people here invented, but
On 1/28/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Like, say, ordered set of instructions to mean computer program
Hey Prof., how about a series of instructions?
If you won't write something that means
anything, is there some reason I should continue replying?
Feed the troll?
On 1/28/06, INFONOVA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
Educated by Prof. Pedro?
regards,
alexander.
Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos
to Wallace for calling the bluff)...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Yeah, since the dissident test has
Hi,
I am considering packaging latex-mk (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/)
for Debian. I am appending below its copyright notice. I think it is
DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure about item 3 and 4. Comments are
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
--
Rafael
$Id: COPYING,v 1.5 2005/09/30
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
(sorry for the document format).
Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.
--
Luca Brivio
Web:
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Frank Küster date=Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:50:04PM +0100
Thank you for the report; it sounds promising, but on the other hand it
sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their
documentation with a CC license will not be an option for etch.
Hello,
I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my
questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm
writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in
the Debian package. You can find the source here:
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
On 1/27/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn L. McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all;
This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
help straighten me out with this.
I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
binaries that
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
as follows. The FSF retains special authority
unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my
own free software, can I take
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
(sorry for the document format).
Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.
--
Luca Brivio
Web:
Thaddeus H. Black writes:
I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
as follows. The FSF retains special authority
unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
I am considering packaging latex-mk
(http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/) for Debian. I am appending below
its copyright notice. I think it is DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure
about item 3 and 4. Comments are appreciated.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is
* Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-28 19:44]:
Seems to be the standard BSD 4-clause license. Clause 4 is completely
fine, clause 3 is annoying and imposes a burden on redistribution but
generally considered free, AFAIK. I wasn't around before June 1999,
but I expect Debian
[snip]
On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all
references stored in
[snip]
First off; while I am a Debian Developer, and do have some experience
in auditing licenses for DFSG compliance, I can't make any claims one
way or another as to whether software licensed under such a license
will be acceptable for inclusion in main (main being the part of the
Debian
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
in doing things
Raul Miller writes:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy,
merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and
unmodified copies of the Font Software,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual
* Alexander Terekhov:
I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen
thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is
kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception
for user space).
Any thoughts?
Development of
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written
permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction
applies to all
* Andrew Donnellan:
Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux
Some developers and organizations have assigned copyright to the FSF.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Nathanael Nerode:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Users who install derivatives (Modified Versions) on their systems
should not see any of the original names (Reserved Font Names) in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams,
documents that refer to a particular
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
instigating the lawsuit.
So what
Raul Miller writes:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that line of reasoning, people who don't live in California are,
too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be.
I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
restrict the use of software
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see
35 matches
Mail list logo
