[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B!!(B
$B!!K\F|$N(B[$B$a!$k$^$,$N([EMAIL
PROTECTED](B]$B$O!]!Z=PMh$k!$G$-$k!#2#0:P0Je$NCK=w$J$i=PMh$k![(B
$B!!(B
$B!!:#$NG:$_$O!!![EMAIL
Luis,
SPI isn't Debian's master. SPI can not change licensing on Debian's
property without direction from the Debian project. And the requested
change is not trademark-related, it is entirely about copyright terms.
Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
project
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:22:38PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
I saw a short note by Andrew Suffield regarding Choice of Venue in Free
Software licenses, which was pointed to by the Debian weekly news.
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software
Bruce,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:07:31PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Luis,
*
SPI isn't Debian's master.* SPI can not change licensing on Debian's
property without direction from the Debian project. And the requested
change is not trademark-related, it is entirely about copyright terms.
I
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I figured but was mentioned on the thread SPI would be holder of the
copyrights.
Yes. Holder on Debian's behalf. You folks are in the driver's seat.
Was also advised to e-mail trademark lists.
They probably have something to contribute regarding the form of
On 18-8-2004 08:22, Luis R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
project leader can do it by fiat (it is a simple thing, after all) or
you can do it through your resolution process. Tell us when you are done.
Anyone know
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I'm not reciting, dancing, or acting postfix. I'm not rendering
it or playing it either, as far as I can tell. I don't even *see* its
code, which seems quite different from music I'm playing or a dramatic
work I'm rendering.
playing is a rather
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL
to something inappropriate. So
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:44:09AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
information from it, and posts an
Hello
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:53:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
not include such source comments (hsftp).
It
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output is copyrightable and covered by the
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been
slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software,
at the detriment of the upstream author.
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of
On 2004-08-18 03:01:59 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL
to something
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output is copyrightable
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that any license that compels modifications to be under
anything other than a copyleft is problematic. Copyleft is only
allowed because it is explicitly grandfathered in by DFSG #10.
Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:56:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
OK, I forgot to mention those cases where the program includes parts
of itself in the output. However, there is no way an email sent
through postfix can be a work derived from the postfix code. The same
reasons apply here as to
Lewis Jardine writes:
It might also be worth noting that proprietary applications such as
Microsoft Office don't use copyright to restrict 'public performance'
of the program, instead relying on an EULA
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:15:39AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Do you want us to remove you guys off this thread until we settle the
score?
I am fine with being on the list, but please refrain from blaming SPI
for this not being done. There were a number of comments to that effect
attached
I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:51:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
copyright of a program to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:22:38PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Ok, find attached the new ocaml
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter Landry wrote:
I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an
acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me. How is that incompatible with DFSG 3?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That as long as is important. It can be engaged in two ways. If I
say GPL except for to Bob, who gets Nothing! Nothing! then that's
not Free, because Bob doesn't have a Free license. If I say BSD to
teachers, GPL to
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible
with DFSG 3.
This is where you lose me.
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not Free. It gives these grants:
1) Distribute with source, passing this license along.
2) or, if you're Bob, under a proprietary license without source.
Now I have only one grant of permission. I have to pass along 2, but
I don't
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Now consider a similar license with one change: only the original
developer may release under a proprietary license. Such a change
reduces the number of people who can take the software proprietary. It
seems like if the case above is a
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
presenting now].
The execution isn't, any more than the cycle of an engine is
copyrightable. The code is. In other
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't interact with Postfix. I also don't interact with the
kernel. I interact with things that interact with those -- Gnus, and
Emacs, for example. But many of the commands I run don't give me any
output; they just change the state of the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The execution isn't, any
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't interact with Postfix. I also don't interact with the
kernel. I interact with things that interact with those -- Gnus, and
Emacs, for example. But many of the commands I run don't give me any
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas
So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any
other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the
creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by
copyright[1]. This is old news.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with
=_NextPart_000_%RND_NUM_1.x
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wh=E8re some br=E8ast enh=E3ncement pills promiuse miracles
we don=92t we just help your bre=E3sts achieve their
full n=E3tural s=ECze. Caress is a unique h=E8rbal bre=E0st
enh=E3ncement
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:07:17AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been
slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software,
at the detriment of the upstream author.
Even though
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to
protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary
software, not Free
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:26:22PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to
protect and preserve
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing
GPLed code in proprietary software for example ?
That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned
about such a thing, assign your copyrights to the FSF, and they will
be
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 01:16:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:21:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
42 matches
Mail list logo
