On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
> > measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
> > to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
> > allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
> > Source Code.
> ***
> Although this may be a Free requirement -- and I believe i
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Glenn!
> You wrote:
>>>3. Digital Restrictions Management.
>>>
>>>As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
>>>technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share
>>>copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard:
>>>a) The modified work must carry prominent notices stating that you
>>>changed the work and the date of any change.
>>
>>This is so widely violated that it's clear that it's not working; it'd
>>be nice if they would acknowledge this and remove it.
>
> Yes
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:24PM +0100, mickaël leduque wrote:
> >[13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
> >If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
> >countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
> >copyright holder who places the Program under
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > a) They may require the preservation of certain copyright notices,
> > other legal notices, and/or author attributions,
> ***
> Change this to "certain *accurate* copyright notices, other *accurate* legal
> notices, and/or *acc
From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where did the "unless that component itself accompanies the
> executable" go? Is it somewhere else?
It has been eliminated, intentionally. The rationale is to make
things like Debian GNU/Solaris legal (currently a distribution
can't contain both the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Weimer escribió:
> * Victor Seva Lopez:
>
>> I´m trying to create a package [0] that has been licensed by Common
>> Creative Deeds 2.5 [1]. Would you be as kind as to tell me if this
>> license is compatible with DFSG?
>
> Would you check if
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| 16.[11] There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
| applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright
| holders and/or other parties provide the Program "as is" without warranty
| of any kind, either expressed
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 7. License Compatibility.
>> Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of
>> additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:
>> d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
>> allow user
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 1/17/06, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Technically, the statement we're talking about is probably the one
>> required by GPL #2(c) - notice in particular that 2(c) does not
>> require any specific wording of the notice. There seems
On 1/16/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
Pls don't mess up my game, Ken.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Note also that modification and copying under 17 USC 117
(plus any other lawful activity under any other exceptions and
limitations to exclusive rights) doesn't trigger acceptance.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, olive wrote:
> > I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> > copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> > make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of
> > them
> > as he wishes by
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
Source Code.
***
Although this may be a Free requirement -- and I believe it should be
cons
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:41:14PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > 5.[2] Distributing Modified Source Versions.
> > c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate
> > copyright notice, and tells the user that there
Hi Glenn!
You wrote:
> > 3. Digital Restrictions Management.
> >
> > As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
> > technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share
> > copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of
> > th
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:18:46PM +0100, mickaël leduque wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> > No, because the exclusion applies worldwide, and the license
> > incorporates it into its body.
> >
> > andrew
>
> OK, but why is it free to forbid exportation to some parts of the world?
In my opin
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/643d20ed959418ec
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/decb10a8816c96b6
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/eb61dbc76806b071
regards,
alexander.
> As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need
> not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
> normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
> essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the
> operating system on whic
Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> Whatever this clause means is actually rather difficult to dicern;
> luckily it has been deleted in GPLv3.
>
>
> Don Armstrong
>
Oh yes,that's what the brackets (not really apparemnt enough imho) mean.
Thanks for the answer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> No, because the exclusion applies worldwide, and the license
> incorporates it into its body.
>
> andrew
OK, but why is it free to forbid exportation to some parts of the world?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
>From GPL v3 draft 1:
>> [13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
>>
>> If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
>> countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
>> copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an
>> explicit geo
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, mickaël leduque wrote:
> >[13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
> >
> >If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
> >countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
> >copyright holder who places the Program under this License may
No, because the exclusion applies worldwide, and the license
incorporates it into its body.
andrew
On 1/17/06, mickaël leduque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
> >
> >If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
> >countries either by paten
>[13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
>
>If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
>countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
>copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an
>explicit geographical distribution limitation
On 1/17/06, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes. Furthermore, given that the license notice should not be
> > translated, I would suggest that the use of gettext on the license
> > notice strings is a bug.
>
> I am not convinced that th
> > d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
> > allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
> > Source Code.
> ***
> Although this may be a Free requirement -- and I believe it should be
> considered Free -- it poses *major* practical problem
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:07:40PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Failing that, at least make it clear that you don't have to identify
> > yourself here, or that an alias is acceptable.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure if this is the right direction: I'm strongly in
> favor of a clear copyright status of a
On 1/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does this apply to GPL-incompatible shell scripts and 'bash'? Doesn't it
> mean that GPL-incompatible shell scripts using bashisms are in violation of
> the GPL? I think it does. I'm OK with that. Other people might not be,
> though
* Glenn Maynard:
>> Regardless of any
>> other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute
>> covered works that illegally invade users' privacy
>
> This is a butterknife being boxed with a "you may not sharpen this
> knife and stab people with it" notice: that's already illega
Here we go. Can't make that comments system work.
Places where I think there is a problem with the draft are marked with
asterisks, since I have so much positive to say.
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 3, 16 Jan 2006
>
> THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF
I'm commenting here, rather than to the FSF; I'd prefer to get a look over
my impressions here first.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:07:42AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 3. Digital Restrictions Management.
>
> As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
> technical attempts to r
* Victor Seva Lopez:
> I´m trying to create a package [0] that has been licensed by Common
> Creative Deeds 2.5 [1]. Would you be as kind as to tell me if this
> license is compatible with DFSG?
Would you check if this license permits use of the work under an
license which is written in English,
On 1/16/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give
> you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it.
17 USC 109 (aka copyright exhaustion in Europe) gives you
"permission", not the GPL.
> If you don't agr
Here is version 3; it's also available on gplv3.fsf.org as well.
Don Armstrong
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Discussion Dr
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?
1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
the program in question.
2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
I think his point is this
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes. Furthermore, given that the license notice should not be
> translated, I would suggest that the use of gettext on the license
> notice strings is a bug.
I am not convinced that the _copyright notice_ (i.e. "This program is
free software, etc, etc
Hi,,,
I am using Crypto Expert 2006 professional Trial
but I have no license so that I can not make lager disk size so You can help me
the license number it.
Thank you very much.
__Bạn Có Sử Dụng Yahoo! Không?Mệt mỏi vì thư rác? Yahoo! Thư c
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:50:10AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It's due to some recent and inconveniently timed personal events
> rather than *anything* within Debian, but I'm going to be reducing my
> involvement considerably. I'm sure people who have no insight into my
> life will claim other
39 matches
Mail list logo
