Please confirm your request to subscribe to Ac21Home
Hello, We have received your request to join the Ac21Home group at Yahoo! Groups, home to free, easy-to-use email groups. To become a member of the Ac21Home group, please confirm your request by replying to this message. If you did not request, or do not want, a membership in the Ac21Home group, please accept our apologies and ignore this message. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care P.S. If you would like to learn more about the Ac21Home group, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ac21Home Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Welcome to Ac21Home
Hello, Welcome to the Ac21Home group at Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use email group service. Please take a moment to review this message. To learn more about the Ac21Home group, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ac21Home To start sending messages to members of this group, simply send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you do not wish to belong to Ac21Home, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To see and modify all of your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups Regards, Moderator, Ac21Home Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
David == David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Apparently, the maintainer of Glut hasn't been changed yet. David So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.) David On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote: reopen 131997 thanks * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free, see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997) I agree with the argument that this is not DFSG free. I'm posting mostly because it's unclear when no one responds to a message whether a consensus exists or whether the comment has not been read. I think this license is sufficiently obviously DFSG non-free that whoever claimed it was free and closed the bug should spend some time reviewing the DFSG before continuing to maintain packages.
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
This one time, at band camp, David Starner wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote: reopen 131997 thanks * GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free, see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997) and debian/copyright says NOTICE: The OpenGL Utility Toolkit (GLUT) distribution contains source code published in a book titled Programming OpenGL for the X Window System (ISBN: 0-201-48359-9) published by Addison-Wesley. The programs and associated files contained in the distribution were developed by Mark J. Kilgard and are Copyright 1994, 1995, 1996 by Mark J. Kilgard (unless otherwise noted). The programs are not in the public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing fees. These programs are provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code. That's not a DFSG-free license - there's no right to modify given. I've been told that the author basically means the X11 license, but if so, then he needs to state that, and that needs to be included in the package. ITYM no right to modify explicitly given. And if you bothered to read all of debian/copyright, you would have realised that I had included what the author means in the package. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg And, Lord, we're especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is, except for solar, which is just a pipe dream. -- Homer Simpson, Bart Vs. Thanksgiving
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
This one time, at band camp, Sam Hartman wrote: I think this license is sufficiently obviously DFSG non-free that whoever claimed it was free and closed the bug should spend some time reviewing the DFSG before continuing to maintain packages. I think that you have sufficiently obviously not read the license of this package that you should spend some time doing so before continuing to give out your opinions. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg XFire FHFS, perl does not suck, its just different. :P~ StyxToo In the way that a man with no arms, no legs and an impacted brain stem is different StyxToo Would you go to war with him? I don't think so -- #spankyhouse
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site. That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are exactly three choices, according to point three: 1) I give them the source 2) I give them a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give anybody the source 3) I forward such a written offer I myself received to them. Number three is not available most of the time. I would have thought that in this situation you could get away with putting the source on a web site and telling the students to download it within a few days. That way they have been given the source. Edmund
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20020213T133738-0800, Walter Landry wrote: In fact, it seems like the GPL is better worded for this sort of thing. I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation. For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and give the copies to my students, I must also give them machine-readable source. This is a major nuisance. If you *ever* distribute more than 100 copies in total, you will have to give all of them a copy of the Transparent version anyway. In any case, making machine-readable versions available to your students is probably not a bad idea in general. I, personally, prefer to have everything in electronic form because it is much lighter than dead tree format. In any case, it is sufficient to bring one floppy or CD to class with the machine-readable source. If you're going to be distributing a lot of different documents, I would put them all on it. If your students are at all like my students, they won't want it, and you have fulfilled your obligation. If a bunch of them do want it, then maybe it is not such a good idea to just be giving them paper docs? However, I do appreciate the root of your comment, which is that it makes informal, paper-based sharing more of a hassle. It will always be a hassle, because these hassles preserve the freeness of the document. This is true of the GPL and the GFDL. Also, it is not at all clear what is object code or executable code when talking about documents. I agree, which is why I mentioned it at the end of my email. That is something that the FSF can fix. I don't think that this is a big problem. As a specific example of where the GPL is better worded, instead of arbitrarily listing certain formats as Transparent and others as Opaque, it simply refers to the preferred form for modification. It seems you have not read the FDL properly. It gives a general definition and lists *examples*. I think this is better, as it clarifies the definition. The definition mentions formats that can be viewed and edited directly and straightforwardly with generic text editors. As I hope I made clear, this is a bad way to define things. Open Office is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a generic text editor, so it seems like I can't GFDL anything I create with it. The examples are also bad. As another example, the GFDL requires me to include a copy of the license in the documentation. The GPL only requires a copy of the license along with the software. If you are using the GPL to license documentation, then a reasonable interpretation is that the documentation is the software. Therefore, you are obligated to give a copy of the GPL along with your document. I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear here. I wasn't claiming that, with the GPL, I don't have to give people the GPL. I was saying that I don't have to put the GPL *in* the document. Rather, I can distribute it *with* the document. With some image formats, I don't think you can even put comments *in* the same file. I would be quite annoyed if my MagicPoint presentation (which I can edit with generic text editors) had to have a copy of the license inside it. Why? You don't have to show the license to the audience. If I have 10 different presentations, I have to include a copy in each presentation. This is really unnecessary and bloated. It also adds a number of clauses about copying in quantity, Endorsements, Title Page, and Cover Texts that unnecessarily confuse anyone who wants to apply the license to their work. They are actually quite necessary, and there actually isn't enough of them. (I have a concrete example where I need a cover text that is treated like the endorsements section.) Please elaborate. I still don't see the benefit, since these things can be changed quite a bit. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please reply to unsubscribe from Ac21Home
Hello, We have received a request from you to unsubscribe from the Ac21Home group. Please confirm your request by replying to this message. If you do not wish to unsubscribe from Ac21Home, please ignore this message. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
You have been unsubscribed from Ac21Home
Hello, This is to inform you that your request to unsubscribe from Ac21Home has been completed. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Bug#131997 acknowledged by developer (Bug#131997: fixed in glut 3.7-12)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:57:22PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: debian/copyright also includes upstreams response to my queries, which you conveniently failed to include. In that mail, Mark Kilgard makes it quite clear that the user certainly has a right to modify his code. I'm sorry; the changelog didn't lead me to believe that debian/copyright had changed. I'm sorry I made that assumption. But let's look at that change: Regarding bug#131997: From: Mark Kilgard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Jamie Wilkinson' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: GLUT license Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:29 -0800 Jamie, An an open bug against GLUT regarding the license? That is so Richard-Stallman-open-source-zealot-idiotic. You have a bug against a licensee? Funniest thing I heard all day. What would it mean for someone to not have the right to modify the code? Are you saying I'm going to keep someone from editing GLUT source files on their own hard drive? Exactly how would I do that? Better yet, why would I even care? I wrote GLUT to make it easy for anyone to learn how to program in OpenGL and make a cool demo that can port easily, etc. I have absolutely no interest in some your social contract or whatever your agenda happens to be. If GLUT is useful, make it available; if your ideology gets in the way of that, not my problem. - Mark So what does this change? I still don't know if we could get sued for changing glut_teapot to produce a Debian swirl. We don't care about modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can modify it and distribute it. -- David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
On 20020215T115256+, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: I would have thought that in this situation you could get away with putting the source on a web site and telling the students to download it within a few days. That way they have been given the source. No, you couldn't. (Unless the copyright holder never finds out or just doesn't care.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license evaluation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Does the following liscense fall under the Debian Social Contract such that it could be distributed in main? If not, how could this package be distributed with Debian? http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html - -- Warren GPG Fingerprint: 30C8 BDF1 B133 14CB 832F 2C5D 99A1 A19F 559D 9E88 GPG Public Key @ http://www.cbu.edu/~wturkal/wturkal.gpg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8beVamaGhn1WdnogRAl8hAJ0ex9dCSJvcsqfZ1924hU4mLevUTQCfQFO9 Fb4clFonUNseNBpxljitMl8= =yn/u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
about the vovida license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If you reply to my message, please CC me as I am not a subscriber to the list. http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html - -- Warren GPG Fingerprint: 30C8 BDF1 B133 14CB 832F 2C5D 99A1 A19F 559D 9E88 GPG Public Key @ http://www.cbu.edu/~wturkal/wturkal.gpg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8beW/maGhn1WdnogRAtNsAJ42GFJKnlX+oBACwvaW9Xy+QIamrACdEBcf 8Wxdz430EpGy215biwyiinU= =PlAF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: license evaluation
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:51:36PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote: Does the following liscense fall under the Debian Social Contract such that it could be distributed in main? If not, how could this package be distributed with Debian? http://www.vovida.com/About/license.html I don't see why not. Was there anything you were worried about? -- David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
