Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:48:06 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You can't quite change the name of the work using a patch. You always
have to distribute the original, which includes its name. If Abiword
were under a patch-clause license, Debian'd
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
-Brian
Am I correct in my reading of the GPL that the upstream losing his
license is only a problem
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
GPL §4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
Program except
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:57:44AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect Larry Rosen's work was part of the motive for Branden
proposing the contract/ autocrat test for licences.
You're not wrong, but as you imply, he's far from the only offender.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:09:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do
not have a license to use AbiWord on derivative works.
Er, well, we kind of do -- did you follow footnote 2 in my message?
We have a sort of license, but it's
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 05:07:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It seems unlikely that work (A) which GPLed but is not trademarked
abiword would be more or less DFSG-free than work (B) which is GPLed
but is not trademarked AbiWord.
Huh?
It seems unlikely that:
work (A) which [is]
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. Is making and
using multiple copies within one organization or company
distribution? . As I read that, it's simply saying that the
you in the FAQ can be a company, and as
Francesco Poli wrote:
The software was legally distributed
to me, and that gives me some entitlements under copyright law.
Which ones?
Please explain (IANAL, hence I'm not so knowledgeable...).
Most copyright laws state that you have certain rights to use the
software if you legally
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:39:56 +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Maybe
when Christiaan, the current FIGlet maintainer, comes back from
vacation and release a new version with the license changes,
Which license changes?
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It does pose a direct problem for Debian, as we may not have a valid
GPL license grant from upstream -- because *his* license under the GPL
may have been revoked.
GPL §4. You may not copy, modify,
Répondeur :
Désolé cet email n'est plus relevé.
Pour me contacter, merci de m'écrire à :
chienchilla75 Arobasce hotmail.com
(remplacer arobasce par le symbole @ et supprimer les espaces). A+
Oliv..
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet!
En vacances ou absent du bureau...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists.
But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the
upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much
less license it.
Assuming the upstream author has
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists.
But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the
upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much
less
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument
that the upstream author can't
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument
that
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:38:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Let us call them the package maintainer and patch contributor.
It's a bit more complicated than that. We have seven people listed
in the AUTHORS file for xchat 1.2.0, with many others mentioned in
a footnote. Most of the sources
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:39:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's
contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so
long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases --
including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the
original work from the original author, and to the derivative work
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases --
including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the
original work
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL.
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge, which is
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge,
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's
license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license
to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the
right to prepare that work, much less
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:07:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the
GPL.
There is still the point that the shareware binaries presumably
contain some code to check their time limit.
こんにちは、Yahoo!グループです。
[cocoro-net]グループへの参加申し込みをいただきました。
まだ、グループへの参加手続きは完了していません。
■このグループに参加するには
このメールにこのまま返信してください。手続きが完了します。
■参加を取り消したい
このメールを無視してください。手続きはキャンセルされます。
※このメールにお心当たりのない場合はそのまま削除してください。
コンピュータウイルスの影響で、あなたのメールアドレスが詐称されていた
可能性もあります。
■[cocoro-net]グループ
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:33:49 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives
periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
Huh? Subscribing to debian-legal
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:30:45 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're missing my point. While what you said was true, it does not in
any way refute the statement that we'd also have to distribute
software which said This is Abiword -- the root to which the patches
are applied.
Perhaps I'm
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:55:52 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:39:56 +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Maybe
when Christiaan, the current FIGlet maintainer, comes back from
vacation and release a
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:22:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
* I noticed that there is at least one thing that can be done in the
second hypothesis, but not in the first one: ...
If it matters -- if the trademark has some major significance beyond
being the product in question -- then the
On Thu, 2004-14-10 at 12:47 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Firmwares do not run on the host CPU (they are /data/ for the host
system)
Ah. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that non-program
data files aren't subject to the same rules for inclusion in main as
executable programs.
32 matches
Mail list logo
