Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
/usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.
Le Mer 18 Janvier 2006 20:58, Steffen Joeris a écrit :
You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting
that they accept the PHP Licence for all
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 22:39]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
non-free licence.
We have discussed this. -legal agreed that the license
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in place.
-legal came up with a pretty solid plan for what we wanted for a trademark
policy; we wanted some review by a lawyer with some knowledge of trademark
law. We haven't heard back
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself.
quote***
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander compatible with itself
Alexander
Alexander The GPL is incompatible with itself.
Alexander
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
snip
the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it
can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution.
Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It
outlines recent
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A troll hunter.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]
Beside that,
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see
Hands Off Yorick!
On 1/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no
Hi all,
I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year
requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years).
Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People
buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the
GPL is to always send a
Daniel Carrera writes:
Hi all,
I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year
requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years).
Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People
buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference.
If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not offering access
to copy. So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them
wouldn't count. Correct?
Daniel.
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to
Daniel Carrera writes:
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference.
If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not offering
access to copy. So giving them the option to burn a source CD for
them wouldn't count. Correct?
I would distinguish that case by the cost. If
Michael Poole wrote:
I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a
checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no
additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the
situation at a conference.
At the conference I would be giving the
Daniel Carrera writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a
checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no
additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the
situation at a conference.
At the
On 1/19/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse
and I don't want to worry about the sources.
Even if you feel under obligation to do what the GPL decrees, your
customers can of course make a promise not to come
Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer
case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it?
The three year offer is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't know
where I'll be in three years, and I don't want to worry about being able
to provide
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
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,
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work
(17 U.S.C. 1201):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part
Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer
case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it?
I agree with Daniel that it would be sensible to permit this, and I've
actually made this suggestion already on their rather cool commenting
webtool. Here's the
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So here it is:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work.
I'm not sure how a program _can_ require authority of a copyright
holder? Did you mean The exercise
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc.
http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html
Now,
One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel,
where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
[...]
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-18 11:01]:
There are currently two proposals in discussion on debian-vote
regarding a position statement on the GNU Free Documentation
License. The texts are available at
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
order to gain access to that work.
This is too broad. If I have a machine on
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:53:46AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Effective technological protection measure is supposed to mean Effective
technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution.
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any
way that suits their agenda, so effectively probably really means
pretends to ...)
It meansin effect here.
regards,
alexander.
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-18 11:01]:
As an example I want to question if I would have to move xblast* to
contrib, because the graphics are rendered with povray, or if there is
no need for it?
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc.
http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html
Now,
One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel,
where proprietary video
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:58:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
technological measure which effectively controls access to any
work.
Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
It is decided by external
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in
its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary
video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't
link
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and
even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the
individual file copyright notices.
andrew
On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection
scheme, then, well, it's not
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:52:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
the past 50(?) years; but since everyone
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
(Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
Hey legals, drop this link
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively
to poor Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and
even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the
individual file copyright notices.
Sorry, but under Moglen's own theory, it is enough to have a tiny
On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and
even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the
individual file copyright notices.
Sorry,
Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that calls
POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in contrib.
Andrew
On 1/20/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Anthony Towns
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You
couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't
purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux?
Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute.
Well,
quote author=Moglen
The Foundation notes that
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:33:08AM +0100,:
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't
purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux?
Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux -
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that calls
POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in contrib.
Hmmm. The description certainly didn't give that indication, nor did
the fact that povray was only in Suggests.
If it has no
46 matches
Mail list logo
