Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
| Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters
| on
| the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It
Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book
Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these changes
It is likely that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a Free
quite possible? I'm not sure about likely.
license in the sense of the DFSG. However, since requiring attribution
and credit is acceptable under the
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A side question: Does -legal think that it would be OK for Debian to
distribute *checksums* of the non-free magic blob-of-bits, such that
it can be located inside a Windows driver on
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
to reverse engineer anything,
If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
engineering, then we do need permission from the
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It ought not to be difficult (neither in a technical or in a
economic/legal sense) for manufacturers to ship the standard firmware
as a separate file on the driver CD that usually accompanies such
hardware, and for the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
The main author of Plex86 forked his own project (heh) to create the
new Plex86 effort, and relicensed it under the MIT/X license. He
asserted that, as the copyright holder, he has permission to do so.
But
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
| Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
|
|Glenn Maynard wrote:
|
|
|On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
|
|The main author of Plex86 forked his own project (heh) to create the
|new Plex86
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
| Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
|
|| So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't
|| appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book
|| production (storyine
Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public
domain) free? I think it is.
Yes, the software is free. Technically, this isn't a license; the software
really is in the public domain and no license is needed. Please do put the
whole
Anders Torger wrote:
snip
As I see it, this #9 is a sort of belt-and-braces clause which is more
or less redundant.
This is non-free. Requiring users to implement click-wrap provisions is a
substantial restriction modification of the most annoying sort.
The traditional way of distributing
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified
without the
Ryan Underwood wrote:
Sorry for late reply.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
getting anything but a 100% identical code,
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
Not in the US. No idea about other countries.
About once a month I seem
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, the courts apparently never uphold claims of infrignement
based on the use of essentially-identical (boilerplate) legal text
in other contracts or licenses. (I think there was a case where the
supplier of fill
Adam Kessel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:15:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the status of license and contract texts, since
the case quoted below is of no help whatsoever. These are not, as far as
I can tell, the law -- they are not laws or regulations
posted mailed
I'm mailing Evan and redirecting to -legal, where this sort of detail
belongs.
Evan Prodromou wrote:
AT == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Me We wouldn't just take stuff out based on the
Me _assumption_ that there's a better source format, without
Me
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's the draft summary of the OSL2.0 I promised. Comments
requested. Specifically:
Regarding the patent clause: Sam Hartman, you Anders Torger (the
upstream licensor) were the only two I saw while going back over the
thread that felt it wasn't a problem. Is my
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The bigger issue, though, is that I didn't provide a DFSG section for
the first problem. The closest the DFSG comes to prohibiting use
restrictions is #6 (No Discrimination Against
Jake Appelbaum wrote:
Hello,
I am interested in packaging hydra from the THC group. I think that it
would be an excellent addition to the Debian project.
My question arises from an added license that is in the hydra-3.1.tar.gz
package that I downloaded from
Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I will admit that I thought this was true for all works not just for
modified works. So in my original example, you could actually
continue distributing the original program that contained GPL plus an
OpenSSL exception. However, if you modified the work, you were not
Sam Hartman wrote:
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ I will not reply to your grandstanding about our needs, other
MJ than to note that the default for unlicensed software is
MJ roughly all rights reserved, so we must get clear
MJ permissions.
We are not a court.
Brian May wrote:
snip
Brian There are other issues with the GPL that might effect
Brian soundfont files, not sure. For instance, would the
Brian soundfont file be considered source code when making a
Brian *.wav file?
Probably; it would be the preferred form for modification,
Brian May wrote:
Ryan == Ryan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ryan I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug.
You weren't listed in your mail-followup-to header, but I CCed you
anyway. Hmmm, I guess I should have CCed you at the start, sorry about
that (the BTS
posted mailed
Jiba wrote:
Hi all,
About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur
in a free license:
You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character,
and his background.
No. The requirement is quite definitely non-free. It also doesn't
posted mailed
Joshua Tacoma wrote:
(not only am INAL, I also have no experience developing debian packages,
and this may grow into my first one)
I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/?lang=e
It's available under two licenses: one (free) for Open
Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
today I read that Alan Kay will receive this years's Turing Award[1] and
checked out his Open Source project Squeak[2]. I also realized that
there is an open RFP for it[3]. The package is supposed to be free, but
when I checked the license[4] and the package files,
posted mailed
Lex Spoon wrote:
Agreed on all counts, Brian.
I actually think Squeak should go into non-free on Debian, once the
fonts are removed from the image. I've been meaning to develop a
message to debian-legal about this for quite a while, and now Roland's
post and Alan Kay's
Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
Lex Spoon wrote:
The export clause just means Squeak must go into non-free.
No. Rather non-US. With non-free, we have the same export problem. And
if there's another problem that forces us to put Squeak to non-free, the
result would have to be non-US/non-free.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions. So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
Frederik Dannemare wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking of filing an ITP on Snort Alert Monitor[1] (SAM), but I'm
not 100% sure about its license. Although the license is based on the GPL,
there are some modifications to it. Personally I think it still looks
compatible with the DFSG, but I may have
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
*Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to
be a violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
doesn't grant any right to modify that preamble
Lewis Jardine wrote:
snip
To my knowledge, 'don't break the laws that apply to you' clauses are
not considered non-free (though they are GPL-incompatible, being an
'additional restriction'), as these restrictions apply anyway, whether
they are stated in the license or not; they only restrict
Lex Spoon wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'when such distribution is prohibited by law' - If you're not a US
citizen, and not in the US, US law does not apply to you, and therefore
does not prohibit such distribution.
[...]
'all applicable United States export control laws'
martin f krafft wrote:
snip
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no competition
from
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 02:53:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
^^
preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Again, I must profess my limit knowledge here... but by including a
choice of law and choice of venue clause I begin to wonder if this
licenses starts to
look and smell an awful lot like a contract. While I generally agree with
your statement, it seems awful fishy in
Martin Schulze wrote:
Henning Makholm clarfied the other two points I noted.
| And furthermore, the worst line of all:
|
| This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software on
| an unlimited number of computers under your direct control.
|
| Purports to restrict use.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3]
Milan Zamazal wrote:
Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now.
I'll add a couple more clarifications. :-)
snip
HM == Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
HM I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do
HM chmod -r, it's a technical
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with
their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel
packages.
No, it's not. The firmware, if done right, will be in
architecture-independent, kernel-version-neutral packages.
--
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file
format.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising
Martin Schulze wrote:
I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines[2].
I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would
still be considered free. However, if
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:46:48PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on
my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help
at all?
I have no idea. If you do, you should probably seek
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
is there any way of
including this in Debian without receiving a new license from Raven?
No. Period.
The program appears to be licensed under two licenses; if so, this means you
can use whichever one you prefer. The first one is obviously non-free.
The second
Niklas Vainio wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 06:10:06PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
xzx's license forbids modification but we have a diff of over 30 kB.
It looks like it's undistributable in the current form. See bug
240941.
Where is the license text available?
All packages have a
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/et/dd/docs/1991/31991L0250-ET.doc
I can't read this. Got it in English?
this document outlines the circumstances under which copyright
holders effectively forfeit their copyright
...
and the sections that
i wish to draw to
David Moreno Garza wrote:
Hello,
I am now packaging a Tetris-like game, and I have some doubts about the
description.
I have written the description like this:
Description: Free clone of Tetris, featuring a bastard level
Bastet (stands for bastard Tetris) is a free (GPL'd) clone of
Elizabeth Fong wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My school is looking into installing Stanford's Coursework application for
managing online course sites:
http://getcoursework.stanford.edu/index.html
However, its license seems to be decidedly non-free, and I'm trying
Burnes, James wrote:
It disturbs me that such a great piece of software engineering like
ReiserV3 and V4 is sullied by licensing arguments about whether someone
is going to plagiarize them.
I imagine that nearly all software engineers would be horrified at the
thought of stealing the
Hans Reiser wrote:
Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
Credits that users must take action to
Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Recall that the Creative Commons Attribution license was ruled to be
DFSG-non-free by debian-legal (initial review request at
Russ Allbery wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as
complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license
their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully
understand. I (and,
Jakob Bohm wrote:
Another common cause of non-distributable software happen when a
single program combines parts under different free licenses**
that conflict with each other in some way that makes the
combination null and void.
s/null and void/undistributable/
Or, some way which means that
Lewis Jardine wrote:
There are, however, standards that are backed by patents and/or
trademarks, and not freely implementable (postscript, mp3, pdf, etc.),
^^
No, trademarks are different. Trademarks are always DFSG-free and don't
cause problems except when certain companies get
Jakob Bohm wrote:
snip
The term under your direct control typically does not refer to
physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
usually refers to under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
[legal] control, that is any computer that the licensee (which
may be a person,
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term under your direct control typically does not refer to
physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
usually refers to under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
[legal] control, that is any computer that
Lex Spoon wrote:
I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
1. Export regs. Are our servers up to snuff for avoiding export to US
embargoed countries?
Marc Fargas (TeLeNiEkO) wrote:
Hi folks. I'm working on a php application that is licensed under the LGPL
license but I need to include a few files from http://pear.php.net that
are licensed under the PHP license.
Then the question is: Can I redistribute those PHP licensed files with my
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Raul miller posted this mail on debian-private, with an
explicit permission to quote it elsewhere. I am doing so now.
manoj
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:24:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Can you refute the hard facts found on
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different
people]
On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
Don Armstrong wrote:
snip
I'm not sure if it's been raised in the context of the DFSG, but as
some people have been mixing and matching GFDLed works with GPLed
works, or seem to want to, this was something that came up in
discussion.
Since many of the affected GFDL works are documentation for
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:59:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
snip
I think the phrase technical measures in the GFDL refers to the concept
discussed in this article from the WIPO copyright treaty:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
Ah, this is key.
I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
Can you point me at some jurisdiction where such copying is
disallowed?
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I have been told that the UK is one such jurisdiction, but I'm by no
means expert (or even
Dan Weber wrote:
I wanted to run this by you guys before I produced any packages that
use this noting the sip library resiprocate which uses it. The
license is attached.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
Does anyone know if the latest version of the Apache Software
License still retains these terms?
No, thankfully Apache Source License v 2.0 ditched them for the more
sane (and more to the point) §6:
6. Trademarks.
Josh Triplett wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* 4. Products derived from this software may not be called VOCAL, nor
*may VOCAL appear in their name, without prior written
*permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
This
Walter Landry wrote:
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The permission that matters to us comes two sentences later:
You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the
terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or
warranties on behalf of
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* 4. Products derived from this software may not be called VOCAL,
nor
*may VOCAL appear in their name, without prior written
*permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
This license appears to be
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed
binaries.
Where the GFDL is used to license programs, it's not something that we
can distribute under the DFSG. [As this could
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:12:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Make or distribute is the biggest problem here. If it said make and
distribute, you might be correct. As it is actually written, it
requires that you not place specific technical obstacles in the way
Raul Miller wrote:
snip
I appreciate that you think that chmod -r is control, but since (from
a user point of view) it's equivalent to not making the file available
for download I don't think that this is a meaningful point of view.
As mentioned elsewhere, the problem is that the GFDL applies
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i notice in particular that 50B says you may not disclose
what you decompile [to a higher level language] to any party except
those involved in the decompilation process.
that is 1) _not_ in the 91/EC/250 directive that i saw three years
ago 2)
Matthieu Moy wrote:
[ I know this is out topic here, but I've already sent this mail twice
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], twice to the discussion list of the fsfeurope,
another time to the SystemC mailing list, and didn't get a single
answer :-( ]
Hi,
I've developped a piece of
Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:22:24PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
++ +-+ +-+
|| | | | |
| A | | B | | C |
|| |
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
I had a discussion with a DD friend on the GFDL; and we both felt that
I should share my views with the list. What follows is slightly
modified text of one of my messages on the subject.
I do not agree with RMS on GFDL. It is too restrictive on
But I do.
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
snip
I would have got a very different idea about freedom if this friend
had changed either the FSF's `political speech', or the Debian PM or
DFSG and whatever else is in doc-debian and allied packages.
Well, the friend couldn't have represented it as coming from the
MJ Ray wrote:
snip
[Wow, a real live lawyer on debian-legal. Should I bow or something?
Seriously, praise to you for staying here.]
Yeah, we could use your understanding of legalese. :-) Perhaps you can
explain bits to us and explain why the worrisome interpretations would
never be accepted
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Glenn Maynard said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:38:56PM -0400,:
He modifies the existing essay to express his own opinion, renames
it and makes it clear that it's his opinion and not that of the
FSF, and releases it. You then read it, and get a different
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
snip
But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*,
No, that's not right. The majority of Debian people think that
understanding the message and following its principles is *more* important
than passing it along. Passing it along is great, but only
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Greetings,
I'm near completion of a Debian package of IRAF, previously packaged by
Zed Paubre, who has agreed to sponsor me. I believe this new release
has new license issues.
Here's the deal. IRAF depends on TABLES
Really? :-P Ow. Oh, wait, I think I see...
Florian Weimer wrote:
snip
I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing
the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate
certificates):
https://www.verisign.com/repository/rpa.html
The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also fails the
Camm Maguire wrote:
Greetings! Is the following DFSG free?
No.
Clickwrap. And it wants to be a contract. Which is bad to start with.
It requires you to give any Improvements you make to the original Licensor
on demand. That's non-free. To do whatever they like with them, in fact,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right
to
distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They
just aren't enforced terribly often against people who
Andres Salomon wrote:
It would appear that the new upstream release of libapache2-mod-perl2 has
been relicensed; from the ASL 1.1 to the ASL 2.0. As has already been
discussed, the ASL (both 1.1 and 2.0) and GPL are
incompatible (at least, the FSF claims they are). What has previously
been
Andrew Saunders wrote:
An even greater worry is a clause that appears to make the Project
responsible for enforcing compliance with the license terms:
You agree to use your best efforts to see that any user of the
Software licensed hereunder complies with this Agreement.
First of all,
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Does it make any difference that the company is question has been
dissolved and they basically dropped everything into the public domain?
Yes, it *would*
From http://www.loonygames.com/content/1.10/guest/
---
Around July, Crack first missed payroll. August came
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
Justin Pryzby wrote:
snip
Are the UCAR routines copyright of the type that will expire (this
year?)?
In the US, no copyrights will actually expire for twenty years or more.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Raul Miller wrote:
* The license doesn't discrimate against people, groups or fields of
endeavor. [We do not recognize people wanting to enforce particular
intellectual property claims as a field of endeavor, or the GPL wouldn't
be free.]
It's the lack of particularity which makes this
Andrew Suffield wrote:
snip
No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
special libgcc exception, etc.
I don't believe there are any LGPL parts.
libf2c/libU77
portions of libiberty
portions of
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
Well,
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
my derivate.
I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
Only if you consider the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
rendering the document undistributable.
If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
We can, however, perhaps
Raul Miller wrote:
Some licenses (the GPL is a good example) include requirements which
are relevant to the copyright as a whole. In the case of the GFDL,
however, it's not that specific.
You're just wrong here. It is that specific.
From the GFDL:
A ``Modified Version'' of the Document
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
snip
That's not my claim. You can provide some additional context indicating
the temporal nature of the claim and your beliefs about the situation.
On the COVER? This is not practical. And it still doesn't
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:01:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
That is a non-solution. Telling a lie and then saying, oops, the
above statement is a lie, but a previous author requires me to tell
it will (1) not make the lie go away, (2) help nobody, and (3) make
Raul Miller wrote:
For example: you can't take code from gcc and code from metafont and
combine them to build a new compiler -- at least not under the
current licenses of those programs.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:00:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
It's not forbidden to make
201 - 300 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
