On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here
> > [...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> "Documentation" is not a subset of "publication" to you? A new
I got the following email back from Michael. So with the clarification
below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
make it DFSG free and still uphold their wishes as stated below?
Thanks,
Chris Ch
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
> > offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
> > FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
> > him some permissions in exc
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > "Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
> > experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
> > freely licensed, I would certainly be able to
On 28 Aug 2003 03:50:16 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You now have a copy of the latest upstream documentation under the
> original DFSG-free licence, and entirely legally too.
I don't particularily condone this kind of "work-around". It goes
against the wishes of the cop
On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
>
> the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
>
> These changes were made to part of an Invariant sect
Sorry for the 3 GFDL-related e-mails in a row, but I discussed some of
this stuff with my solicitor today, who I was seeing on an entirely
unrelated matter but who quite enjoys these little discussions we have.
His opinion is that the following is entirely legal and breaches neither
Copyright or t
On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here
[...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
"Documentation" is not a subset of "publication" to you? A new twist
on an old flamefest.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 23:09, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
> > to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The
> > Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but o
On 2003-08-27 22:17:27 +0100 David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.
And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 19:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Joe, I don't think RMS is subscribed to -legal.]
I'm pretty sure he's not, which is why he was in my To: line, which is
what I've been consistently doing. If this is a problem I'll move
non-list addresses to Cc:, but I usually only use Ccs if
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"of the copies you *make or distribute*"
> >
> >Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
>
> ---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
>
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commerci
On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as "official"
[...]
Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?
[...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.
Don't they al
On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and
otherwise "use" it.
The troubl
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
[...]
>> make *or* distribute
[...]
> copy *and* distribute
[...]
> copy *and* distribute
[...]
> copy *and* distribute
[...]
> make *or* distribute
[...]
> Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>> >If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
>> >GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
>> >to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
>> >document.
>>
>> Heh. And,
[Joe, I don't think RMS is subscribed to -legal.]
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:39:11PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation
> *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free
> documentation *criteria*.
Even that is not true.
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote:
> My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the
> GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our
> developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with
> things like doxygen-generated libstdc
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:11:32PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
> GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
> invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
>
> Such
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:40:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
> >(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.
>
> "content" is rather, uh, va
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Note that under US trademark law, no use is so pathetic that it isn't
> worth wasting your time on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and
> you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal
> precedent that will come back to haunt you l
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
> GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
> invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
>
> Such things are very hard
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> manuals out now.
I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
statements.
I hope
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not.
Thank you for taking time to correct my English.
The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 10:33 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov
wrote:
The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not
need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for
example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections
in documenati
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 08:19 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the
normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the
normal use of the manual?
1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
compilati
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:14:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
> (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.
Hmm. It's a good idea, but I would suggest s/text/document/ instead.
"content" is overused by our en
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
--- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ---
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
You do realize that document is not what we're discussing here, right?
Since that document is a most ma
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 04:11 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
someone.
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copyin
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 00:52 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear.
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
existed copyright laws) makes this difference.
The copyright laws of the United States, Russia, the Euro
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:40:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Now, I have no clue how US copyright and trademark law interacts with
> Sweden's trademark and copyright law... so a reasonable middle of the
> road approach might be to ask them nicely to consider changing their
> logo.
> Alternativ
On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.
"content" is rather, uh, vague. How about going the whole hog and
doing s/read/enjoy/ in the
It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that
invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.
Such things are very hard to estimate. What is clear is that one does
not use a
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org ) sent to Ronald
S. Brakke.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.
Attachment: your_detai
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org ) sent to Ronald
S. Brakke.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.
Attachment: thank_you.
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
> to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The
> Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
> copyright holder of both works, can distribute
> May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
> if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
> Manifesto and continue to use it)
Maybe he will decide not to use sendmail if he knows that it
was wri
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
Branden Robinson writes:
> There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
> seldom bothers with such things. We go y
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws,
> there would be much less problems with copyright.
>
> For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
> in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.
And if
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do
not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code
into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result).
THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION.
Your upper case was so convinc
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
> fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages,
> is not DFSG-free.
> It was already raised:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111
On 2003-08-27 18:23:49 +0100 Josselin Mouette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our
packages,
is not DFSG-free.
I agree. This seems not to be free software, as it tries
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 11:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be
> free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free
> documentation.
I don't see how this is relevant. If the first person to write criteria
for free software had
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
>
> Utah :-)
Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch
_Raising Arizona_ agai
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to
> invariant sections, because they are not a change. We've been using
> invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at
On 2003-08-27 17:40:38 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking
place
>here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
>Invariant Sections.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indica
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an
> advertisement for the Free Software movement be printed out at
> every interactive invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program?
>
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:32:17PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> You don't understand what free software is about.
He doesn't understand what English grammar is about, either. I have
long since despaired of trying to comprehend is arguments, grounded as
they are in fallacy and communicated wit
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:36PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > We need every method of informing them that we can get.
>
> Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement
> for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive
> invocation of
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:41:26PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on
> user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users.
>
> So does FDL.
Not enough to make it Free.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:19:03PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy,
> distribute, study, change, and improve the text. More precisely, it
> refers to five kinds of freedom, for the readers of the text:
>
> * The freedom to read the text
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 18:42, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow
> GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that
> works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.
>
> I hope that the Debian develope
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We need every method of informing them that we can get.
>
> Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement
> for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive
> invocation of a GNU derived GPLed
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:19:03 -0400, Brian T Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hi,
This is a great start. My admittedly cursory look at the
archives failed to come up with a list similar to this posted
earlier, so I apologize if this has all been covered
innumerable time before.
> * T
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a very important point. I have stated before that I would
> not have serious objections to the FSF issuing a small number of
> non-free manuals for a good reason, as it has been doing for 15
> years.
>
> The FSF manuals are al
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or
>> distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
>> limits.
>> The GPL itself takes away nothing.
>
> According to your statement, any license
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
>
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> ^^
>
>
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> 2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the
>subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case -
>transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any
>action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to
>perform. Namely: inst
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
> >> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.
>
> >My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL
> >documents on that filesystem,
Richard Stallman wrote:
>It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
>here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
>Invariant Sections.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> > > distribute something else than software.
> >
> > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that
> >
You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow
GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that
works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.
I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered
manuals in Debian. Whateve
> We need every method of informing them that we can get.
Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement
for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive
invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program?
A long message at startup would be very incon
Scripsit =?iso-8859-1?b?Suly9G1l?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that
>> would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether
>> or not Debian could permit and/or support various
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
>
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> ^^^
>It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
>here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
>Invariant Sections.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or
distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
limits.
The GPL itself takes away nothing.
According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on
user. It does a copyright law
Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages,
is not DFSG-free.
It was already raised:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/200
eManager Notification *
The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content.
Source mailbox:
Destination mailbox(es): <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Policy: Attachment Removal
Attachment file name: your_document.pif - application/octet-stream
Action: Replaced
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Richard Braakman
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 16:33, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
>
> Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions
> (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> > the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> > glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> > See htt
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 14:07, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe
> EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you.
> There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading.
>
> May be user will decide not to use Emacs
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > We don't agree? So what?
>>
>> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
>> are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with
>> you, can you imagine the
Fedor Zuev said:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
>>> will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
>>> of such code.
>
>>How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangma
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
>
> Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions
> (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away
> *some* f
Alright, if none of the GNU Free Warez License folks are going to come
up with freedoms for documentation, I'm going to. This is heavily
derived from the FSF's Four Freedoms, before they went fundamentalist
and proprietary:
Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy,
distribute,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
> are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with
> you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
> decide, on a case-b
On 2003-08-27 15:33:32 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not
need the
freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example
Manifesto
from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
>> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
>> from your desktop. Get real!
>Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock th
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
> as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
It is, by definition[0], off-topic. Therefore, as any good editor[1]
will tell you, it would be an improvement to remove it.
[0] Rea
> As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html .
You should also note that SCO
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
> someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
> it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
> yet another work which happens to be identical to
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions
(limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away
*some* freedoms.
Debian users and maintainers agree with suc
Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We don't agree? So what?
>
> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
> are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with
> you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
> decide
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Documentation in not a software.
>>> This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which
>>> turns software
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
>>> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
>>
>> My goodness. And we thought w
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
^^
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
--
Henning
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>> Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
>> affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
>> problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
>> large, that it affect the rights and interests of users a
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> >How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
>> >game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
>> >source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
>> >throu
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>> No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
>> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
>> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
>> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free
Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> > acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
>
> My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems!
We don't
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
>> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
>> similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
>> creator, that they reas
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems!
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16
* Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030825 20:33]:
> Sorry, but GPL have restrictions on what you can do with the code. One
> of the most noticeble is a restriction on using GPL code in(with)
> proprietary works.
As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
cop
Branden Robinson, on 2003-08-26, 15:16, you wrote:
> It's probably good enough for the Release Manager as-is...
Now what do you mean with that?
Joerg
--
Joerg "joergland" Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417
pgpmlS5F4fROB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
Any news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see
any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still
stands unanswered (from what I can see).
It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't
know where Sunnanvind Fenderson
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
document.
Heh.
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
