Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ean, could you explain to Thomas why you think we should have one
definition of Free Software?
Excellent! I think there should be only one definition too. But I
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
disclaims warranty.
That's not
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This only works if the failure happens in a non-dangerous test,
such as a written or oral exam. If the accidental use happens
in a *live* scenario, the consequences can be lethal (literally
in some cases).
Works there too. Students who cannot bother to
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself. I will cheerfully admit to being wrong
when I've been convinced of such, and if I feel
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate ways. Like it or not,
we're stuck with each other.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why do they disclaim warranties? You can't disclaim a warranty
without forming a contract, and yet every free software license
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Regardless, if you don't trust us, and we don't trust you, then we
should go our separate ways, right?
No, we should look for ways to increase our understanding of each
other. You don't do that by going separate
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine,
and this is
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Who cares what you say?
On the face of it, you do. You've expended a substantial amount of
effort over the past couple of days to influence what I say. I can
only conclude that you care what I say.
You misunderstand
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
internal
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad, bad hair, obnoxious attitude.
Back
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG. I merely thought that the DFSG exists to
codify these concepts and make them more concrete. Sort of like a
checklist so we don't
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
You said earlier that you *must* have a contract to disclaim, as if a
non-contractual disclaimer is everywhere void. Now you recognize the
truth, it seems, that a non-contractual disclaimer is, somewhere,
sometimes, a useful thing. Since Free Software in
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:00:23PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Your stretch relies upon a single act being both an act of distributing the
*modified* program and of invoking it interactively.
I see no reason this can't be true of some programs. However, I do not
*rely* on this (see below).
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that
is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to
reply at this point. ]
The response you are quoting was
Stephen Ryan writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad,
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:03:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If they don't accept, fine! They don't accept--and then they are
restricted by the copyright law (NOT by the license) and any further
copying is then illegal.
s/is then illegal/may be infringing/, damnit. :)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:26:42PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
The DFSG #3 doesn't require that modified versions be distributable
under the same conditions as non-modified versions. It says that you
have to be able to redistribute under the same license.
boggle
Huh?
A license is allowed
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you notice, I have actually *listened* to you (gasp!!!) and have
dropped that line of argumentation.
While such a change of position may be of great moment to you, other
people may have overlooked it in this very large
ke, 05-03-2003 kello 18:10, Russell Nelson kirjoitti:
The boards of SPI and OSI are of the opinion (or at least have
been) that there should be one functional definition of open source
and free software.
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, section 9, Software in the
Public Interest,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I say this with great sadness, but there appears to be a difference
in RMS's and the Debian Project's interpretation of freedom 3.
The freedom to improve the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. According to
web.archive.org, they seem to have been added to the GNU website sometime
between December 1998, and April 1999.
That's interesting; I had no idea it took the FSF
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, PHPNuke's interpretation is broader: it insists that the blurb be
in the footer of each page, not just the main page. Even if we can can't
determine the above, can we agree that it's not a reasonable interpretation
to
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not
listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you,
fuck off, and fuck yourself.
It might be more fruitful to provide affirmative evidence for the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:55:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This simple approach appeals to me, not least because it makes the GNU
GPL more easily applicable to things that aren't software:
source form = preferred form for modification of the Work
object form = any other form
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and my example
PHPNuke pipeline?
PHPNuke is interactive. Grep
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:31:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I think it boils down to this. When I run a KDE app, I think it's
reasonable to ensure that the About box maintains a reference to the
original author for
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not sure where we could go from there; asking them to change it to only
the main page is pointless if that's 1: still ambiguous and/or 2: still of
questionable
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what the Affero bit is?
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Now THERE'S a title I'd like to have :-)
-- John
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:33:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Just FYI, I share your feelings. I think 2c is the worst wart on the
GNU GPL.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the FSF is interested in having more
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
object code as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
an example of object code
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that our interpretation of 2 as a whole is desirable, and likely
to be the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:47PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as object form
as any form other than
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
I am looking into the license of the Xbae widget set, see
http://xbae.sourceforge.net
Mr. Stakenborg, are you subscribed to debian-legal?
You've received several replies, and I think everyone who has replied is
pretty much on the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
Software license to forbid people from removing them. It makes perfect
sense to remove an
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
Software license to forbid people
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I have a hard time deciding what to think here. On one hand, it is
not, in the present case,
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let us consider the output of tr a-z A-Z as _not_ source code
nor object code. This implies that it is not exempted by section 2, and
also not exempted by section 3. So it's not a particularly useful
definition since you would be bound by pure
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as object form
as any form other than
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your
code and prepares a derivative work that is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:21:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Works there too. Students who cannot bother to listen carefully to
lectures should *not* be designing bridges.
You are *such* an idealist. I suggest not driving or walking upon
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Well I should say, this case is independant of the GPL due to the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
that you can remove that
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG.
The Four
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I have a hard time
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
FSF's definition of Free Software -- Constitution
Debian Free Software Guidelines-- statutory law
debian-legal discussions -- case law
So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, attempt to
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow
someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity?
That's the end
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
change your mind.
Your only purpose here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:21:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Works there too. Students who cannot bother to listen carefully to
lectures should *not* be designing bridges.
You are *such* an idealist. I
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four essential human
freedoms.
As I recall, Debian postdates
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously we have a disagreement here, but like I said before, you're
not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to yourself. I'm done trying to
persuade you, I guess I'll have to let reality sink in before you'll
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:27:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that in Thomas' view, those who cannot be bothered
to carefully observe bridges and examine the engineering diagrams
beforehand should not be walking on them, and deserve whatever happens
if they willy-nilly
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
What sort of transformations are permitted?
I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
recover, or with which the key is provided.
This definition has a few advantages:
* It's technology-neutral. cpio vs. tar,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:52:33PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
On one hand, it is not, in the present case, an orneous requirement.
[...]
I think it is an orneous requirement.
Do I make you 'orny, baby? Do I?
Guys, I think the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:08:28PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
programming A term describing a program whose input and
output are interleaved, like a conversation, allowing the
user's input to depend on earlier output from the same run.
In each run, PHPNuke receives a single
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:53:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
This, I simply don't think I can agree with. Perhaps a clearer example
would be irc.worldforge.org. It lives on a computer owned and operated
by Bob. But Bob basically never
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional
permission and is therefore
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I do.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:43:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
This also goes for programs that have never been interactive before
(and so never had a notice). If, say, I modified CVS such that it
entered an interactive mode when run without arguments, I believe I'd
be required to add a 2(c)
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is this a joke?
Asks someone whose wit is of great renown.
FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's.
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward
to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I personally favor strict interpretation of licenses, with some
cognizance of historical precedent, and a liberal interpretation of the
DFSG, such that it can be read broadly to exclude licenses. I think
this is a far better
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Oh... Let's say you run an ASP service that uses GNU Hello
World to display the
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I believe this is not free unless
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:27:34PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that in Thomas' view, those who cannot be bothered
to carefully observe bridges and examine the engineering diagrams
beforehand should not be walking on them,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:20:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
But why should they need to see licensing information for software when
they're not bound by the licenses?
I don't think they need to see it, but that they need to *be able to*
see it. So, I do think the current (2)(c) is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:55:18PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Oh... Let's say you run an ASP
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
*speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of
the foundation*
I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees,
but I'm
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:56, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what the Affero bit is?
I have another message in this thread
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:47:27PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your only purpose here seems to be to persuade others, with a kind of
intransigence and a refusal to allow yourself to be persuaded.
... and you were
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so enthusiastically; it makes fear that
I am unwittingly aiding
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hopefully you can understand my predicament. I'd really like to see
more in the way of round-table discussions between the FSF and the
Debian Project, especially since I feel that philosophically we have far
more similarities than
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
would be happy for it to brew some more (although I'll have to take off
my FSF hat, of course).
By is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional
permission and is therefore
Sorry, I'm still catching up. I found myself short an Internet
connection at this year's Mardi Gras so I'm wading through a few hundred
emails.
I'm not prepared to respond to this at length in this message but I will
summarize some thoughts. I'm in the process of preparing a full document
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:39:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
would be happy for it to brew some
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:19:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Does anyone believe that this interpretation is sufficiently wrong-headed
that it should not be considered valid, in spite of statements from the
copyright holder or a court ruling?
(Parse failure. Restarting.)
Does
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:16:13PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
Branden, if I'm not
Ean,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:12:57PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
The underlying reason I see an advantage to the community encouraging a
unified definition of Free Software is government legislation. It is
fairly obvious to me that neither patents nor Free Software are going to
go away
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:17:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The notice requirement is part of the license. The only way to give
others the freedom to NOT add such a notice when making a
non-interactive - interactive transition with your code is through a
license exemption (any statement
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hang on, before someone from the FSF gets defensive -- Thomas, please
see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00036.html
I can understand, however, why you weren't aware of these developments.
Thanks for the
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The underlying reason I see an advantage to the community encouraging a
unified definition of Free Software is government legislation. It is
fairly obvious to me that neither patents nor Free Software are going to
go away anytime soon. As a result we
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only*
provides an exemption if the Program itself is interactive but does not
normally print such an announcement. This means that if either the
Program itself is
90 matches
Mail list logo
