In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the
technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision
almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access
to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable law. Neat.
No, it would also mean that you can't make
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
Documentation.
once we do that
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:40:56 -0700
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that this is even necessary. Suppose, for example, we
chose to solve the documentation problem by creating a new archive
section for documentation. Documentation that meets the DFSG would
preferably still
Scripsit John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
Documentation.
once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
defining the free-ness
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision
almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access
to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable law.
hi everybody
mplayer 0.90-3 is in
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer ./
and was uploaded to the incoming dir of Debian.
So please review the package and tell me (and the ftp-installer(s))
if this may be fit for Debian
and thanks for the time
--changes in 0.90-3:
the
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Problem #2: Double Standards
We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with software
under even more strict terms than the FDL. Examples of these things include
licenses.
All of the arguments being made about freeness of
Hi,
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
adventure game:
~~~
Preamble:
Basically, give this game away, share it with your friends. Don't
remove this Readme, or pretend you wrote it. You can
Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
adventure game:
It's non-free. There's no permission to create a derivative work, or
to distribute such a
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:38:43 -0700, John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
MJ Ray wrote:
Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are
missing is a clear working definition to separate out Software,
Data, and
Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
adventure game:
[snip]
At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having read
the Artistic
* Tore Anderson
At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having
read the Artistic license, whose paragraph 5 involves the same
restriction while still being DFSG-free, I would assume this is
acceptable for inclusion in main. But do comment, legalese is
not one
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 15:15, Tore Anderson wrote:
* You are permitted to modify the game as you like, and also distribute
such versions under the same license as the original work, if they are
clearly marked as being modified versions.
..would that be okay? (Suggestions on how to
* Tore Anderson
* You are permitted to modify the game as you like, and also
distribute such versions under the same license as the original
work, if they are clearly marked as being modified versions.
* Joe Wreschnig
The GNU GPL version 2 has a clause that words this very well.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:08:37PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
may be sold), but using it in things like commercial adventure game
collections without asking is just playing dirty.
I'm fairly sure that the license does not actually accomplish
this. Presumably it refers to clause 3:
3) You
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 18:44, Tore Anderson wrote:
Well, it's not really a source+binary distribution, more general
data (compare it with a jpeg wallpaper, for instance). So I don't
really see any reason to make the distinction. Indeed, the reason why
upstream doesn't use the Artistic
* Joe Wreschnig
You can GPL a JPEG, or a PDF, or whatever.
Straying a bit off topic now, but this isn't as trivial as it you
make it sound (for JPEG's, at least). It's almost a certainty that
the preferred modifiable form of a digitally created image isn't a JPEG,
but a format specific
Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we
should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from
documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this.
[I cannot do it, but perhaps someone else is able.]
[snip]
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position
above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that
RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to
convince.)
I wasn't taking myself to be arguing
21 matches
Mail list logo
