On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 13:29 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think an interpretation of the GPL that says I wrote this
code in C. Forever is C must it stay! is correct.
Right. All I'm saying is you must distribute the C
On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 13:30 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you mean by that that if I use an editor that does not have a
save format that losslessly reproduces all of its internal state,
then I can only distribute the output
On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 16:37 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Yes, there might be such a case, but I would say that a few edits
isn't such a case. And that the usual scenario isn't this at all;
it's people who simply throw away the xcf or outright refuse to
distribute it.
On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 16:36 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Why would C stay the preferred form for modifying a work for eternity,
even when the current work bares hardly a resemblence to its C
original?
It is *PART* of the source. Not the whole source, but part of it.
On Sunday, Jun 22, 2003, at 08:11 US/Eastern, Henning Makholm wrote:
But if they are not the preferred form, it is illegal to edit them (at
least, it it illegal to distribute the edited gifs). So what's the
point of being *able* to do so?
If you merge the layers of an image, then edit
On Monday, Jun 23, 2003, at 02:44 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
The reason is quite clear: because otherwise one could very trivially
escape the GPL's requirements entirely, by making some little
modification directly to the binary for some program, and then
claiming that the binary
On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
The issue of storage is more controversial, all I can
give is my personal opinion that it is fair to expect that creators
keep
track of at least their own work,
I don't think its reasonable to expect me to keep track of
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Thomas Hood wrote:
In general if you possess both a non-indent(1)ed version of the
program you are distributing and version of the program that you
have run through indent(1), then I want the non-indent(1) ed version.
Generally, one doesn't run
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman
That's a lot easier than Here's a Debian CD. And here's my solemn
promise to provide source CDs for this Debian version to anyone who
asks for the next three years. Please wait while I go buy a CD
burner.
(Note that 2(c) is
On Sunday, Jun 15, 2003, at 12:45 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated
forms
are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
Program-generated forms can become the preferred form. Its certainly
possible to use
On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 22:02, Walter Landry wrote:
d) Accompany it with information as to how to obtain, for a charge
no more than the cost of physically performing source
distribution, corresponding source. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution)
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 20:10 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I
found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I
think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
already adequetely
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:01 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
product is a precondition for this.
[...]
Humans
(non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-)
Hmmm... sounds like you're required to
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 21:07 US/Eastern, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
a) cause SpamAssassin fail to meet the DFSG (or OSD)
Yep, certainly does. And, in principle Habeas must not be free to stand
a chance of working.
[ For example, they'd fall afoul of at least the discrimination on
fields
On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
I already asked the question
here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a
GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 %
free.
It was a while ago until people noticed the
On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 14:32, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
Are public domain files (true public domain, copyright declined by the
author) also restricted by default?
Public domain means there is no copyright protection of the work.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:56, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
Somewhere on this planet, bandwith must be really cheap...
21715 Filigree Court, VA is one such place. Now if only power and space
there were really cheap :-(
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not
debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
The
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote:
c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works
to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or
Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the
Open Software License;
...
3) Grant of
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 22:04, James Miller wrote:
To date, I'm not aware of any FOSS related cases, but
perhaps SCO, Novell and IBM will provide something for us
in this area?
Personally, I doubt much of interest will come out of SCO vs. IBM.
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 14:58, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
And even the FSF
will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB
manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then
the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts.
No, the FSF will
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
In a nightmare one can imagine large numbers of
cover texts in one manual, but it isn't likely to happen. Where the
BSD advertising clause produced a mountain, the GFDL produces a
molehill.
At least one situation comes
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 23:21 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not all: the terms of section 3 talk about covered source code in very
broad terms of all modules [the work] contains. Can you expand on
your understanding of this phrase?
Section 3 reads, in part:
You may copy and
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 07:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think one coowner would be able to change the license terms of the
work as a whole without the consent of the other coowners.
He can. That's one of the things it being a joint work instead of a
collective work means.
Any author of
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 20:00, Jakob Bohm wrote:
However the main point of my post was not that. My main point
was that in Borland vs. Lotus, the issue placed before the court
was the right to *re-implement* a compatible interface, not the
right to implement things that *use* the interface.
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 19:26, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
I will contact upstream to fix this licence but first I would like to know
your opinion: what should I propose to the author as the new licence?
MIT/X11: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
(new) BSD:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
packages like it.
Not quite -- I'd prefer
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:19 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
All of those --
TCP, HTTP, and DEB -- are generic formats.
.deb isn't. There is, AFAIK, only one implementation.
At the very least, alien and dpkg deal with it; I believe there are
others.
If I remember correctly,
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 14:25 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work.
Well, from carefully reading the GPL, this appears to be what it says.
A quote:
a work based on the
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 12:22 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
First, any interface which could be used by humans is a method of
operation. This is essentially all interfaces.
That's a good question. I think the decision only covers interfaces
that humans need to use to use the
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:26 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
I used to have an additional clause in my freeware licenses - A copy
of all
modifications must be sent back to the author.
Please be aware that clause fails the DFSG. Its OK to request that, of
course.
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
That make me suspect that the sounds are under a different license or,
at least, requires a different copyright citation or author acknowlegde
than the game itself when used individually.
Probably.
- xboing:
Years ago i
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:35 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
slew of words! The branden misses!
Ridicule does nothing to help your argument.
Of all the
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR your only version of reconsider?
In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Actually, I'm a little unclear on the latter point.
Yes, it is at least DFSG 3 that I and many others believe invariant
sections violate.
To what extent
are non-functional restrictions OK for Debian? For instance, the
GPL's
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 03:51 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis then said:
At some point, we've got to draw a line where it's de-clawed. After
all, I think we all agree that if a shell script calls GNU grep[0], it
isn't required to be under the GPL.
This does not affect
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
but given
their authors licensed them in ways that forbid linking with
non-GPL-compatible software, such as OpenSSL, that sounds reasonable
Well, at least you're consistent ;-)
Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just an exercise in
ivory-tower masturbation.
Well, I
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
postint.
It uses adduser, which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
also under the GPL. So, as above, we have to say the postinst is
available under the GPL.
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
distributed with GNU grep be itself available under the GNU GPL.
So every script that Debian distributes
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
their way out of the copyleft commons.
At
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of
such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear
and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every*
set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 02:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail:
4. The location of the original unmodified document be
identified.
I feel that this clause might be problematic in a way that clauses 1, 2,
and 3
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 02:14, Branden Robinson wrote:
Another good argument against the GNU FDL.
Not to mention that publishing known false statements, like claiming it
is a GNU Manual or that the FSF publishes copies, is of dubious
legality.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 19:11, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
P is not a derived work of GPLLib, but P+GPLLib is likely to be a
derived work of GPLLib, in which case it is not allowed to distribute
them together.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], I posted the legal definition of a
derivative work in the
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 13:38, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
software.
My
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote:
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*.
Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes.
That's right. You seem to keep
Just noticed another problem:
A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable
copy, represented in a format ... that is suitable for input
to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety
of formats suitable for input to text formatters. ... A copy
that
I'm going to try again... I think somehow, we got off on a tangent of
sheet music which blurs the issue. Ignoring my previous message about
not being able to have sound be a transparent copy at all:
I hope we can agree that:
1) Transparent copies of a document are required for
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
you should be able to do a
text representation of a FFT or something, I would've thought. Long,
and ugly, but editable as text,
That's no better than a hex dump of the PCM data. It's not any more
editable in a text editor (possibly,
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in a GPLed library hasn't been cloned yet?
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 03:53 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is your argument that because of the nature of GNU automake, it might
be
causing our users to inadvertently infringe MIT's copyright?
Yes, that's the argument. See the first paragraph under the quoted
material, which reads in
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
No, you wouldn't. There seem to me to be plenty of ways to have an XML
format for music that would be plausibly editable. Think scores and things.
Works great for some types of music, but other types is routinely put
through a lot of filters,
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them
if
they are truthful?
The cause is the non-freeness; one symptom of the
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 01:22, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit
for
writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told
that
they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
[...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part
of a text document?
It'd no longer be a plain-text document. To take a random example, you
could create a HyperCard stack (ignoring that HyperCard isn't free, for
a moment
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 22:15, Joey Hess wrote:
I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a
document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in
base64 encoding.
OK, I'll dig it up... RFC2397: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt
I'm not sure what
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted languages demand GPL scripts?
I think he's too busy taking over the world to do
On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 15:22, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
Might have something to do with [EMAIL PROTECTED],
or the effect of that on me :-D
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 18:59, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This appears to represent a consensus view of Debian:
* Some people believe that immutable sections are not acceptable in a free
document,
Aye.
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 23:47, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
As a final note, 'moral rights' are *not* 'copyrights', and a copyright
license should not attempt to have anything to do with them, any more than it
should have anything to do with patent rights, design rights, or trademarks!
You are
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
artistic reputation or character.
So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Alex Romosan wrote:
in
no way, shape, or form do i think anybody should have the right to
edit somebody else's political statement.
Why? I can certainly see why they shouldn't be able to edit someone
else's political statement without clearly noting they have done
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:09, Alex Romosan wrote:
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will eventually define all
that is software...
So? That's true of any set of works composed of a finite set of
elements. Sit them
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 19:34, Alex Romosan wrote:
i've read the DFSG now a
million times and all i can see is references to software and source
code. it doesn't say anything about documentation,
Nor does the Social Contract.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
so if it isn't code, and it isn't used to generate
code, or doesn't affect the build and run-time of a
program, then it ain't software.
OK, now define code.
Let's try an example. PostScript is a programming language. It is
Turing-complete (w/ the exception of finite resources in
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 06:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Therefore, the IETF is insane often :-)
No argument there.
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:12, Henning Makholm wrote:
The current status of the preamble goes much farther than
that. It says that I must not reuse the wordings in the preamble for
composing a text that expresses *my* views on licensing (and makes
clear that they are mine, not the FSF's).
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 05:08, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states The
license must not discriminate against any person or
group of persons.
That guideline is intended to disallow things like If you're French,
you may not use this package. The license must be
What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
Strike that text! It's not true. Noting
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL, let me try:
start new answer
The Free Software Foundation clarifies what it means by ...but changing
[the GPL] is not allowed in
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type development of the wording of
a position
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:27, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Except that it's typically a lot easier to work out where a program has been
incompatibly modified (oops, compile error, damn, the API changed) than a
standard has been modified. The use of 'diff' notwithstanding.
Well, when you modify a
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:33, Matthew Palmer wrote:
RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this.
No, that's generally only done for tiny changes: Adding a bit here or
there, etc.
For large changes, the
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
Of course both of these limits are
judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
[Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is
a
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 01:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am not arguing that dynamic linking creates a derivative work, and I'm
not sure the FSF is, either. I *am* arguing that it is within the
purview of the GPL to impose restrictions on redistribution of dependent
works whether or not these
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 19:19, Steve Langasek wrote:
My question is, how is a package that depends on DBD::mysql materially
different from a compiled program that links dynamically against
libmysqlclient?
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:24, Anthony Towns wrote:
[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000624.html
The rule is that the invariant section can contain anything as
long as it is not the subject matter of the article. In
particular, the invariant section can
3(d) Any direct or indirect distribution of any Bundled
Products by you shall be under the terms of a license
agreement containing terms that: (i) prohibit any
modifications to the Derivative Works or any part
thereof,
Ouch. Depending on what constitutes a
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 17:24, Mark Rafn wrote:
The written offer option stinks. Ok, that's a pretty weak
counterargument, I'll think more about this.
I'm pretty confident that if 3(a) were not part of the GPL (leaving only
the written offer option), that the license would not meat the DFSG.
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:51, Jakob Bohm wrote:
I don't know, but if there are not, and a lot of people start
using such licenses, the big media companies are likely to get
their supporters in government to enact an amendment stating
that just because the copyright holders of *some* works
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 12:01, John Goerzen wrote:
My understanding, at least with Mozilla, was that it was dual-licensed as
MPL/GPL because of some problems with the MPL.
Actually, it's tri-licensed as MPL/LGPL/GPL, or at least that's the
goal. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ and
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:51, Branden Robinson wrote:
Got shot in the face when answering your door? You should have answered
the door in body armor, wearing an iron helmet and wielding an AK-47, or
not answered the door at all.
Almost, except you forgot the right wing's love of the death
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 04:30 PM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Just a random thought: There used to be an informal rule saying,
never write a false statement on the blackboard. Some student is
bound to mindlessly copy it down and take it for truth.
I used to insert well-placed
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 22:21, Don Armstrong wrote:
What is the currently recommended method for adding a linking
exception (say with OpenSSL) to a program licensed under the GPL?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs
Scroll down a little to the line reading:
In
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 03:34 PM, Henning Makholm wrote:
author to explicitly disclaim copyright (i.e. make it public domain).
A possible statement would be
...
| royalty-free, non-exclusive, world-wide license to any copyright on
That's not public domain, that's just a very
On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 20:36, Terry Hancock wrote:
Do you mean by this that the US Copyright office does not recognize bitmap
fonts as copyrightable work? (If so, this would be good to know).
The copyright office does not recognize fonts, period, as a
copyrightable work.
However, it does
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 03:53, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
Note, while this is filed against xfonts-75dpi,
Aren't those bitmap fonts? If so, there is no copyright in the US at
least.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:01 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified
software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, No
way!, but
I see the other guy's point ...
Iff the law were to allow such
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't remove my right to sign a contract promising not to do
something, and I believe this is a commonplace and legitimate--if
annoying--practice that the GPL supports: companies can have employees
sign NDAs, preventing
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 20:57, Richard Braakman wrote:
And section 3 specifically says distribute under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2, so it can't be more permissive than
those sections. In fact, it imposes an extra requirement.
That's not quite correct.
Section 1 covers distributing the
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:29, David B Harris wrote:
I don't believe part 7 is saying anything additional to what copyright
law already says; the original author still holds the copyright, even if
you got the data from friend who got the data from a sister who got the
data from an aunt who got
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 11:59 AM, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Nope. We cannot distribute software that doesn't have a proper
license (the
Siemens stuff) or is affected by patents (the lzw stuff).
Fortunately, the lzw patent expires this coming June.
501 - 600 of 641 matches
Mail list logo
