On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shake
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> >
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> ftpparse.c heading:
>
> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> you're using this in.
>
> Which I believes fails t
Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:08:19 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> > than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> > side-by
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:10:44 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Kudos to you, too, Helen, for working with upstream to sort out the
> problem instead of spending 2 weeks arguing about the problem.
I agree entirely!
Congratulations to Helen for solving this problem! :-)
--
Today is the tom
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my
> honeymoon in remote places.
I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :)
>
> I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various
> -legal members. In additio
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we underst
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we underst
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> > Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> > debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> > have
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:08:19 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> > than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> > side-by
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:36:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip things with which I agree completely]
> Once again: linking is a detail. It's not something which copyright
> law makes any special allowances for. Depending on the circumstances
> linking might be analogous to types
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:11:52 +0100, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
> > licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
One person's signal is another's
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Wha
Hi,
Because some people feel unsure about how a JVM, its classpath and java
compiler interact together, below I tried to strip the situation down
to a simple and clean non-java case.
Assume we have the following packages, providing a shared library:
Package: propr-line
License: non-free, free to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
What laws and precedents? All the law and precedent that I can find
sug
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under
> > other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
>
> > But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret th
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:10:44 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Kudos to you, too, Helen, for working with upstream to sort out the
> problem instead of spending 2 weeks arguing about the problem.
I agree entirely!
Congratulations to Helen for solving this problem! :-)
--
Today is the tom
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my
> honeymoon in remote places.
I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :)
>
> I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various
> -legal members. In additio
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we underst
OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we underst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> > Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> > debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> > have
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
[cut noise about FSF]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the relationship between
Java bytecode and GPL code to be loose enough not
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:36:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip things with which I agree completely]
> Once again: linking is a detail. It's not something which copyright
> law makes any special allowances for. Depending on the circumstances
> linking might be analogous to types
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:11:52 +0100, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
> > licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
One person's signal is another's
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Wha
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
Hallo,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
Hi,
Because some people feel unsure about how a JVM, its classpath and java
compiler interact together, below I tried to strip the situation down
to a simple and clean non-java case.
Assume we have the following packages, providing a shared library:
Package: propr-line
License: non-free, free to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
What laws and precedents? All the law and precedent that I can find
sug
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under
> > other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
>
> > But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret th
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php
This is t
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
[cut noise about FSF]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the relationship between
Java bytecode and GPL code to be loose enough not to cr
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
Hallo,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial
> product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby
> agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified
> Contributor") against any losses, damages a
Hi,
(CCed debian-legal, so they know where we are, what we are working on
and where we might need some help in the future)
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 01:10 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, t
> i have read that graphviz is licensed under the Common Public License
> Version 1.0 [1]. The FSF consider this license as free and also in the
> debian-legal mailing-list archive i couldn't find a statement that debian
> have a different view.
> [1] http://www.graphviz.org/License.php
This is t
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Claus F?rber wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> > this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
>
> The Hummer might actually be a problem if i
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial
> product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby
> agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified
> Contributor") against any losses, damages a
Hi,
(CCed debian-legal, so they know where we are, what we are working on
and where we might need some help in the future)
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 01:10 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, t
William Ballard writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office,
> > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers.
>
> No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Claus F?rber wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> > this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
>
> The Hummer might actually be a problem if i
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office,
> Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers.
No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A
lig
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
>
> It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
> other people's designs as "original clip art."
>
>
William Ballard writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office,
> > Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers.
>
> No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:26:26AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Take your problems with Octave, GNU Emacs, XEmacs, GNU R, Open Office,
> Firefox, half of xscreensaver, and Evolution to their respective developers.
No, your metaphor is broken. Those are "new and exciting lighters." A
lig
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered
design (called "design patent" in the US). Even
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on
this?
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places.
I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list emai
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
>
> It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
> other people's designs as "original clip art."
>
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered
design (called "design patent" in the US). Even
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on
this?
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places.
I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list emai
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:53:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature!
> > That's not "original
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> > if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem,
> that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked togethe
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:53:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature!
> > That's not "original
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> > if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as "original clip art."
It is exciting when someone uploads a new cool lighter
66 matches
Mail list logo
