Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
written it oneself) and in I didn't find technical measures on
that page at
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
Charlie doesn't say This image is created by Bob or otherwise tries to
pass it off as a work by Bob.
He clearly states that This image is *based on* the desk image created
by Bob (emphasis
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...]
Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and
and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false.
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
on
multiple machines,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of technological measure and you
have not explained why you think that should be ignored.
#include hallo.h
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
contains invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using
device names), so it's certainly
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
If you can't stand to read this all, the brief summary:
* As well as the ones you spotted before,
DISTRIB, GNU, MOTIVATION, and gfdl.1 are non-free.
* There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called
debian-legal would take one sentence from a license, read it without
considering the context or any of the the other text in the license,
and declare it non-free.
Do you think that this is
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:19:30AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps
some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software.
Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when
deciding whether a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode)
And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
claim to be part of emacs and under the general license than the
rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
in these files.
Some of these files look like C code.
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work?
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore my proposal is to narrow the licensor's-intent principle to
clauses of the general kind that are problematic in the GFDL. The
description in point (a) above is my best attempt
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So the GR promotes a do what I mean, not what I say approach to
license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
literal reading of the DRM restriction is free.
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
How?
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't think my
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00198.html
for previous discussion (from Googling for 'all rights reserved
debian-legal'). It's not a problem.
And what if a script has that
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I assert that their arguments are not part of the position statement
(= not part of what was approved by vote) and that trying to interpret
hidden meanings of the position statement is daft.
As far as I can see our choices are: (1)
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...]
We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated.
I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence
Adam McKenna writes:
And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not
for
archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well.
And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he
prove it?
The Fifth Amendment's privilege
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Finally, I don't declare it non-free and have spoken against such
unhelpful ambiguous language in the past.
Then we are in agreement.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
olive wrote:
Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral
sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the
copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do
with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong
Courtesy of Groklaw:
Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered
to pay the FSF's court costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day.
--
G. Branden Robinson
Hi!I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license agreement:
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdfIt looks like that is has a qt4-like license style. Therefore would this license
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
follow.
termcap.src
This file is (mechanically generated) from ncurses' terminfo.src,
and a moment's consideration would show that there is substantial
creative content, not just
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/19/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it.
That is my point.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:45:12 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
That's why I think the GR was, frankly, _stupid_. Crucially, I think
it's a violation of the trust that Debian's users have in us.
And that's the worst result of the GR outcome.
All that time spent in trying to detect issues and
Hi all,
it seems that Savannah won't accept a GPL'd project, if the author wants
to release under GPLv2 only (that is, without dual-licensing under any
later version of the GNU GPL).
For the details about a real case (mine!), interested readers can dig
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:52:16 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Has anyone found another URL for the real X11 license (the one
that used to live at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html)?
Gentoo has a fairly comprehensive collection of license texts
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
example).
I don't quite understand what you are
Le Mercredi 22 Mars 2006 01:13, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
It seems that I must find another place to have my project hosted...
Sourceforge provides services by running proprietary tools: I don't want
to get used to something that is non-free (and could even suddenly
become only available
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:48, Dominik Margraf wrote:
I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license
and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license
agreement:
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
It looks like that is
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
follow.
* There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing information,
and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
even if they turn out to be
celibacy.1
condom.1
-- Post-1988 (1992).
Probably a better fit for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
package.
sex.6
-- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
so it's in the public domain.
Modified since then, according to emacs CVS.
In any case,
Dominik Margraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license
and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license
agreement:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
it seems that Savannah won't accept a GPL'd project, if the author
wants to release under GPLv2 only (that is, without dual-licensing
under any later version of the GNU GPL).
For the details about a real case (mine!), interested readers can dig
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:38:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:19:23 + MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
Charlie doesn't say This image is created by Bob or otherwise
tries to
Florent Bayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Mercredi 22 Mars 2006 01:13, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
It seems that I must find another place to have my project hosted...
Sourceforge provides services by running proprietary tools: I don't want
to get used to something that is non-free (and
Branden Robinson wrote:
Courtesy of Groklaw:
Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered
to pay the FSF's court costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day.
He will
40 matches
Mail list logo
