Re: I begin undestand debian community (comments to FAQ)
Olleg Samoylov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DFSG primary was developed for software and not adequate to text documents, which not needed to be builded. That's wrong, Bruce Perens intended the DFSG to apply to software and documentation alike when he designed them. See his clarification here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00690.html Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Concerns about works created by the US government
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But as a practical matter, I don't believe the U.S. Government really create all that much copyrightable work these days. I find the CIA World Factbook and much of the data (including images) released by NASA quite valuable. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) The GPL language talks about software. Not really. Software is mentioned in the Preamble, in some clarifying remarks in Section 7, and in Section 10 (referring to software copyrighted by the FSF). Section 3 talks about media customarily used for software interchange. I see no other mention of software. The GPL uses the term Program quite extensively, and Section 0 defines it as a program or work. It is therefore not restricted not any specific kind of work. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
symlinks package non-free?
Hello, The source of the symlinks package consists of a makefile, a manual page, a C file, and an lsm file. None of the three former contains a header with copyright and/or license information. The latter contains the following lines: CopyPolicy1 =(c) Mark Lord, freely distributable CopyPolicy2 = Even if the lack of license information in the source code is not considered a problem, there is no permission to modify the code, so IMHO the program is non-free. What should I do now? Report a bug against symlinks? Thanks, Martin -- ,--. ,= ,-_-. =. / ,- )Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany((_/)o o(\_)) \ `-'http://www.zero-based.org/`-'(. .)`-' `-. \_/
Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: License for these is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm, and here it is: --- Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. [...] * JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Television/Imaging Team Leader, Media Relations Office, Mail Stop 186-120, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA 91109, telephone (818) 354-5011, fax (818) 354-4537. [...] --- I believe that the Special Cases and restrictions are all fine and DFSG-free. Most likely I'm missing something obvious, but could clarify why you consider the above DFSG-free? It seems to me that it discriminates against a group (JPL/Caltech contractors) and against a field of endeavor (advertising/public relations), both of which would have to contact JPL before they can use the images. (IANAL, IANADD.) Martin
copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In another topic, I prefer the term copyrighted. Copyrightable is an ugly, ugly term... and everything that is copyrightable is copyrighted by default... I see a fine distinction between the two terms. For example, a work created by the U.S. government is not copyrighted. It may, however, be copyrightable, i.e. if another entity had created it, this entity would have had the copyright w.r.t. the work. (IANAL, IANADD) Martin
Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Burnes, James wrote: 3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why don't we just come up with some sort of credits standard to be macro embedded in the binaries? That way anyone could view the credits by running a 'credits' shell command against the binary/library/kernel etc. Obviously the macros would be viewable in source. Nice idea. I like it. It's also a good way to put the copyright notices *into* the binaries, rather than merely next to them. How about a standard ELF section for credits? :-) I like the idea as well. FWIW, as an experimental implementation attempt, I have just modified my own little program (jpegpixi, of which I'm the upstream author; I'm not a DD) to put the copyright and license information (i.e. the text which is normally output in reaction to the --version command line option) in a separate ELF section .license. The objcopy command can be used to dump and/or extract the contents of this section. Martin
Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Burnes, James wrote: 3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why don't we just come up with some sort of credits standard to be macro embedded in the binaries? That way anyone could view the credits by running a 'credits' shell command against the binary/library/kernel etc. Obviously the macros would be viewable in source. Nice idea. I like it. It's also a good way to put the copyright notices *into* the binaries, rather than merely next to them. How about a standard ELF section for credits? :-) I like the idea as well. FWIW, as an experimental implementation attempt, I have just modified my own little program (jpegpixi, of which I'm the upstream author; I'm not a DD) to put the copyright and license information (i.e. the text which is normally output in reaction to the --version command line option) in a separate ELF section .license. The objcopy command can be used to dump and/or extract the contents of this section. How much did this addition increase the size of the final binary? It is not really an addition, because the text was there before, just not in a separate section. The --version command line option still displays the same text, although it is now in a separate section. The main benefit of the current experimental implementation is that a shell script (e.g. a one line objcopy wrapper) could also access the text (given only the binary file). To answer your question, the new section increases the binary file size by 48 bytes, which is probably due to the additional ELF header. Hypothetically, would you object to this information being stripped if your binary were used on an embedded or low space device? No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I don't see how I could without introducing additional restrictions to the GPL. The result of stripping the section is no different from removing the text from the source and recompiling. Technically, if stripping the section is an option, IMHO the program should be changed to react sensibly if it is invoked with the --version command line option and the section is absent. Martin PS: If people are interested in exploring this further, should the discussion be moved to a technical list (e.g. -devel)?
Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You miss the point. I get plenty of credit because of the filesystem name. It is everybody else who gets shortchanged unless we print a randomly chosen 1 paragraph credit at mkreiser4 time. I'm not a Debian developer. But I don't understand your earlier comment about attribution in science in the light of this comment. A typical attribution in a peer reviewed scientific journal looks like, e.g., B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 121801 (2003), where the et al. represents 600+ people. Martin
