Op do, 16-03-2006 te 04:35 -0500, schreef Nathanael Nerode:
Jesse van den Kieboom wrote:
Hi,
As I tried to do an ITP my package
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
because the copyrights weren't in order. Now I'm a bit in the open
because I don't
On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Branden,
I am wondering if you will request that SPI, Inc. obtain from its legal
council, on behalf of the Debian Project, an answer to the following
questions:
1. Does the term technical measures as used in GFDL 2's you may
Don't
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think that this very thread is an attempt to construct some
reasonably self-consistent interpretations that we can ask the
developers to decide between.
The developers have already
is not published by M$. (there might be an exeption for some unusual
very complex word documents not fully understandable by openoffice, but
from my experience this is only a very tiny proportion of word documents
using some special feature like macros, etc.).
Your last sentence shows that
Hi,
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
some parts of the licence)
I read
Dominik Margraf wrote:
http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
and Wild Magic
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
Are the licenses of these libraries above compliant to Debian's
requirements?
Questions about the freeness of a license belong on debian-legal.
On 3/17/06, Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html
the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of
this program with the OpenSSL
Copyright holders just can't give such permission because it doesn't
Dominik Margraf wrote:
and Wild Magic
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
Text:
Softwaree License Agreement for the Wild Magic (Version 3)
Library Version 1.0c, April 29, 2005
This Software License Agreement is a legal agreement between Geometric
Tools, Inc., a
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset of word fully understandable
Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
some parts of the
Wildmagic:
The license *might* be free. It is certainly gpl-incompatable.
(c) The Software may be used, edited, modified, copied, and distributed by
you for commercial products provided that such
products are not intended to wrap The Software solely for the
purposes of selling it as if it
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset of
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this
On 17 Mar 2006 11:45:35 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
resolving the license incompatibility.
That problem exists only in the GNU Republic where linking constitutes
creation of copyleft-infringing derived works (and where owners of
copies of software don't enjoy rights akin
On 3/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL
documents unredistribuable.
Uhmm, if you mean Wallace...
The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to
the level of an antitrust
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
Yes. And there's still some hope that it will happen, but
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear.
This requirement does not apply when
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred form for modification.
I don't know of any C
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Things like
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
if a marker pen can be classed as a
Raul Miller writes:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
you make or distribute as well as meet the definition of a
technological measure.
Only when
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above
is clearly not
On 3/16/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is all very well for the DFSG, but I just noticed that the DRM
restriction, read literally, prohibits placing copies on ftpmaster (since
access to those copies for most people is blocked by technical measures).
I believe that the
Raul Miller writes:
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations prevent you from making
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations
* Jérôme Marant:
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
invariant sections.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jérôme Marant:
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
invariant
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source --
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent of this
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:41:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Not in the context of copyright law, as Raul already pointed out.
I
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
That too prevents further reading and copying of the
Adam McKenna writes:
What he meant was, the operations you describe are not operations that
prevent users who already have a copy of the document from exercising their
rights as granted by the license and copyright law.
He's essentially saying that what you are describing is outside of the
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
the work is distributable, or 2: distributability is not relevant
to freeness. A GR that calls a work Free is not
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
That too prevents further
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an example of one.
What part of copyright law states that you can only have one backup copy?
17 USC
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
but received no answer. He's obviously alive, so this could be caused
either by his lack of time or a mail misconfiguration somewhere on the
way;
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either
1: the work is distributable, or 2: distributability is not
relevant to
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an example of one.
The United Kingdom legislation contains fair
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
if
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:34:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
How exactly is a brick wall not technological? Do brick walls occur
naturally?
Why is distribution
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:41:29 +0400 olive wrote:
The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
I doubt that this will ever happen, now that
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Adam McKenna wrote:
I didn't mean give an example of such a jurisdiction, I meant give an
example of infringing, non-distributional copying.
Umm, copying that occurs in such a jurisdiction?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto besides
what
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Pierre Machard wrote:
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order
to publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that
I am involved in the software developement so I can obviously
propose to rewrite some parts of the licence)
Beyond
For the fact that it is or not legitimate to restrict free document to
open format; I would say that IMHO it is at least acceptable since
otherwise it would make it unusable by someone who have decided to use
only free softwares. Another consequence would be that a derivative work
of a free
51 matches
Mail list logo
