On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:27:08PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> wording of the definition is unfortunate, and needs work, but the real
> question is, would any sane person or court really consider a work
> that cites another work to be a modified version of the original work?
If the work that cite
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:06:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There are many jurisdictions without the US's concept of "fair use". Freedoms
> depending on fair use are not sufficient for Debian--a license with non-free
> restrictions is not typically considered free because those restrictions a
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:10:48PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're asking, but the point was that you don't need the
> author's permission, or a license, to use quotes or cite portions of a text
> in another work. I can go to a library and look in books and use information
>
Don't worry, I won't resend the text until Monday (at least :-)). I'm
allowing until next Wednesday (a full week since first publication) for
comments, additions, removals, rewordings, etc.
The latest revision is always available (unless my UML "box" starts acting
up) at http://jacobo.tarrio.org
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 17:06:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribía:
> How about this, more to the point? "If the author or standards
> organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to
Ah, now I understand what you meant :-) I have added something to that
effect.
I'm
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:06:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >It's an example of how no consistent distinction between documentation and
> >programs can be drawn: the source *is* the documentation. I think it's a
> Wrong. When using doxygen and similar programs, source and documentation
> are i
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:15:06PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía:
>
> > Probably another point worth making is that "being in Debian" or "being
> > DFSG-free" is not equivalent to "being good" or "being righteous".
> > [...]
>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:01:07AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html
For what it's worth, here's how I would currently answer the questions
you posed there. Of course, I might later decide that I'd missed some
important point, but what t
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong. When using doxygen and similar programs, source and documentation
> are in the same file but they are not the same bits.
You are wrong. There are systems like Mole for lisps which
transform the source to render part of the documentation.
http://www1
Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> equivalent to something in the public domain. That is, I want you to be
> able to use it to do whatever you wish without any sort of restriction
> or the hassle of keeping track of where it came from.
OTTOMH, whether this is possible depends on where you are.
"Pedro A.D.Rezende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a cc license discussion list, and it is open. The decision
> process may use the discussions, at least in it there is talk about.
I just reviewed a previous intervention of mine on that mailing list.
There were references to raising somet
On 4/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip response to someone else's unattributed comments]
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other
> > end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen
> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes
sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after
linking.
[1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It's an example of how no consistent distinction between documentation and
>programs can be drawn: the source *is* the documentation. I think it's a
Wrong. When using doxygen and similar programs, source and documentation
are in the same file but they are not the same bi
> > Sounds right.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:15:48AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Nope. Compilations (US) / collections (Berne) and derivative works
> are disjoint sets under the Berne Convention (Article 2.5 and 2.3
> respectively) and its national implementations (separate definitions
> i
MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
About Creative Commons:
I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
I do not feel qualified to write it.
I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necess
Hi debian-legal,
I have ITP'ed xymtex ( http://bugs.debian.org/304714 ). This collection
of LaTeX macros has the following license:
%% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
%%
%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
%% directory name
%% (2) if yo
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By your argumentation, it doesn't seem that this is a decision the
author of the library (or kernel, or whatever) gets to make, but
rather something which is inherent in what's been created; they can
offer their own opinion on what constitutes an application's use of
the librar
On 4/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > US copyright italian author's right ("diritto d'autore italiano")
> > --
> > compilation work <--->
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Netbiff may be redistributed in any form without restriction.
Netbiff comes with NO WARRANTY.
It doesn't explicitly allow distributing modified versions. Maybe
"any form" was intended to include modifications, but it's not
obvious. Why not just use the BSD or MIT license?
Bec
On 4/14/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
[snip]
> >There are court cases on point that definitely
> >disagree with you, for example Mirage Editions, Inv. v.
> >Albuquerque ART (cutting a picture out of a book creates a
> >derivative work). Also National
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:43:09PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > > Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright
> > > grants, and as such can't be "freely edited", just like the
> > > comments as
> > >
> > > /* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
> > >
> > > that are in the code. Rem
22 matches
Mail list logo
