[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [hypothetically]
> We here at Gooble know how confusing "source code" is, and that is why
> we are making every effort to never let you see it again, accidentally
> or otherwise.
People who are swayed by this will ignore the freedom of the software
they use in any case
FW> GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
I bet the same goes with OLPC then.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> "To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
> permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
> infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
> computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
> dis
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs
> > in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't
> > be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distributing
> > someone else's software
> Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
> their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
> shell accounts there.
>
> If I can do
> $ cat file
> then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
> same cat, no? (I can at present.)
On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient
> creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't
> (and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then
> GPLv3 ca
John Halton wrote:
> However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there
> will be a number of associated non-executable files (e.g. under /etc)
> for which read permissions need to remain in place. If you have a
> GPLed package, I'm not sure what the implications are of "conveying"
On Jan 25, 2008 12:07 AM, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can execute things you cannot read:
>
> $ ls -l /bin/ls
> ---x--x--x 1 root root 77352 2007-01-30 18:51 /bin/ls
Thanks. I stand corrected.
However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there
will be a number
On Jan 24, 2008 10:48 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (off-list):
> Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs
> in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't
> be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distribut
9 matches
Mail list logo
