Henning Makholm:
Out of curiousity: What does it mean (I suppose the references are
U.S. Law, but I don't know where to look up such things)?
Why does it exist? Who is it supposed to protect from what?
I regret that I don't have a copy of the FAR, but I think someone needs to
look this up. The
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 11:52:02PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Makholm:
Out of curiousity: What does it mean (I suppose the references are
U.S. Law, but I don't know where to look up such things)?
Why does it exist? Who is it supposed to protect from what?
I regret that I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, it would be non-free. Theft is a field of endevor. Note that Berkeley
has a program (or so I've heard) that still prohibits South African police
from using it, because of their past history, and nobody has changed the
At 03:06 AM 8/2/99 -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
Cannot the DFSG be considered in similar terms - that an arbitrary
restriction
upon liberty of use must be disqualifying, yet a restriction for the
purpose of
ensuring respect for life and property may be not only allowed but in certain
cases even
Mike Goldman wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps I do not wish for my software to be used
by certain governments for military purposes - which are by
definition legal, yet just as clearly destructive.
Suppose a government did use your program to design explosive devices,
which they use to put
Mike Goldman wrote:
Cannot the DFSG be considered in similar terms - that an arbitrary
restriction upon liberty of use must be disqualifying, yet a
restriction for the purpose of ensuring respect for life and
property may be not only allowed but in certain cases even
encouraged?
You forgot
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 01:23:22AM -0400, Mike Goldman wrote:
To take a somewhat more concrete example: suppose I write a program which can
be
used to design explosive devices. Such devices have many appropriate uses, in
mining, construction, and so forth. Perhaps it is unnecessary that I
I've packaged the international kernel patch for non-us but there is
some problems with the copyrights:
Case 1:
+/* This is an independent implementation of the MARS encryption*/
+/* algorithm designed by a team at IBM as a candidate for the US */
+/* NIST Advanced Encryption
From: Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, perhaps I do not wish for my software to be used by
certain governments for military purposes - which are by definition
legal, yet just as clearly destructive. Must an author permit such
military use for a license to be DFSG-free?
It
From: Mike Goldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cannot the DFSG be considered in similar terms - that an arbitrary
restriction upon liberty of use must be disqualifying, yet a restriction
for the purpose of ensuring respect for life and property may be not
only allowed but in certain cases even
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As an example, I don't think the DFSG (taken literally) has room for the
GPL's requirements for distributing source code.
The only field of endeavor you could contrive to argue this point would
be one that would take the resulting work out of
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 18:20:45 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
+/* NIST Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) effort. The algorithm */
+/* is subject to Patent action by IBM, who intend to offer royalty */
+/* free use if a Patent is granted.*/
This
12 matches
Mail list logo
