Raul Miller wrote:
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
by the
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the
Humberto Massa wrote:
snip
Yeah, but if they require forced co-distribution, I understand that they
are considered generally non-DFSG-free.
You can require that the source be distributed to the person to whom you are
distributing the binary. You can't require that it be distributed to
anyone
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your copy of the DFSG must be missing clause 3.
| 3. Derived Works
|
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:07:10AM -0400, 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
Raul Miller wrote:
So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies
which have been functionally modified to better integrate with
microsoft's palladium?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:22:11PM +0100,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make
arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the
very core of the DFSG.
Given that arbitrary functional modifications
Raul Miller wrote:
snip
Making copies of the derived work is *not* forbidden by the GPL.
You mean because it's outside the scope of the GPL?
No, because clause (2b) only applies to distribution. Copying of modified
versions in source form is allowed provided the conditions in (2a), (2c),
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nothing prevents them from doing so. That, however, does not affect
the *fact* that, for whatever reasons, they do not *actually* do
so. Hence a claim that they do is *factually incorrect*.
I'm very dubious
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:05PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
keep intact does not mean the same as unmodified.
But we're still talking about a case where not all derived works are
allowed.
Duh! We have stated that certain restrictions on derived works are OK. But
only a
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:35:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
snip
With the exception of a very narrow set of restrictions
related to copyright acknowledgement and warranty disclaimers, the
nature of changes to the code is not restricted by the GPL.
Eh?
He means what
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is allowed by the GPL and required to be allowed by the DFSG, of
course, as long as the resulting gcc binary can be distributed under the
terms of the
GPL. The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes you
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
snip
Being unmodifiable violates the usual fully general interpretation of
the DFSG. Unfortunately, that interpetation isn't really fully general
(and, if carried to the limit, would only allow us to distribute
Raul Miller wrote:
So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies
which have been functionally modified to better integrate with
microsoft's palladium?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:13:13AM -0700, Josh
Raul Miller wrote:
Sure, it's all programs except ___ or not everything. That's pretty
much my point.
Yeah, we accept that certain *very limited* restrictions on modification are
Free. So why do you keep going on about this stuff? There's a short list
of OK restrictions we've already
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
distributed work.
I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of
text in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even
Raul Miller wrote:
snip
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
WTF? Have you read the GFDL?
Yes.
A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently
the
caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
Loading a register might also also constitute copying
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
snip
The proper terms for what you describe here are copyright does not
subsist in this work, where the verb is subsist (alternatively
copyright protection does not subsist, but even lawyers don't
usually
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:44 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
**The library itself would be GPL.**
See below :-)
I just added some additional freedoms/terms for people who want to make
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:13:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
volumes
Are you having a spooling problem? Eighteen (and counting?) mails just
Maybe I am, actually.
arrived in rapid succession, mostly to messages that are several days old.
If you're really
Richard A Nelson wrote:
I've been asked to run this by a larger audience...
They honestly want feedback, so I'll collect any
thoughts/gripes/whathaveyou and send them back.
Use, modification and redistribution (including distribution of any
modified or derived work) of the Software in
Josh Triplett wrote:
Guido Trotter wrote:
The code for ipw2100 is free software. To load the driver you'll need a
firmware which is non-free and subject to an EULA (for details see
http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=2). Debian cannot thus
distribute this thing (the firmware),
Raul Miller wrote:
What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say
it's too tolerant of licensing problems.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK. I would interpret it as meaning must allow most modifications and
derived works
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require
that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the
distributed work.
I don't
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:55:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
modified for you hypothetical environment would be non-distributable?
Raul Miller wrote:
On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
Note that content under a patches only license will give you much
worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
On Mon, May 10,
Raul Miller wrote:
Given that arbitrary functional modifications would include illegal
activities
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It does. A license that tries to incorporate you must follow the law
clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear
Raul Miller wrote:
snip
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Why not?
Because palladium is a proprietary work, and it's more than just an OS.
I'll grant that if the changes were limited to what was required to get
the OS to support it, that would probably be
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
the original work were in the public domain
The summary is overall excellent, but I disagree with this one point.
In general, choice-of-law
Walter Landry wrote:
Rather, they would file in California court, because that is where
California law is decided. The whole point of choice of law clauses
is to force everything to happen in a particular place.
No; to my knowledge, this is simply wrong. California law can be decided in
Walter Landry wrote:
But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
other.
Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of venue, which we also
Don't Like.) I still think it's non-free; I mean, gee,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which
copyright would subsist if the world were different.
Perhaps you've missed the point. I'll try more detail:
Whether there exists a valid copyright on a work depends on
* aspects intrinsic to the work
*
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have allowed clauses of the fairly narrow form You must not do
thing X with this work if it is illegal to do so in your jurisdiction
before, though I don't care for such stupid clauses.
If we have, we shouldn't have
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Hello,
I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which
covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is
free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and
may be acceptable for main if one can extract the
Henning Makholm wrote:
I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such
that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than
just give examples of things it *cannot*.
Well, I like the approach a lot.
I think that such a revision
could get the guidelines to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party.
This sounds completely unacceptable, if it means what it says. It's also
probably invalid in the US. Copyright assignments must be signed and
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would be quite comfortable allowing patent retaliation
restrictions, but
only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license
rights must terminate only if the work is alleged to constitute patent
infringement (no action based
Glenn Maynard wrote:
As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
the GPL at all.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I'd like to append something like the
Sebastian Ley wrote:
Hello legal wizards,
I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
is distributable in non-free.
The license can be found here:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For
instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work,
has
apache in its name. Furthermore, they've stated
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they really meant to steal the work, then the whole license may
be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
Why? What
posted mailed
Carlo Wood wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
which render its
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive,
posted mailed
Matthieu Delahaye wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to
posted mailed
Evan Prodromou wrote:
snip
Making our organization's ideas known to Creative Commons could have
meant a better suite of licenses for the 2.0 release. Instead, the
opportunity was missed. As far as I know, the above-mentioned analysis
wasn't forwarded to Creative Commons before
Jim Marhaus wrote:
Hi all -
With the recent discussion about choice of venue, I was wondering about
the Mozilla license. Specifically, the Mozilla Public License v. 1.1 [1]
seems to contain a choice of venue clause in section 11:
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party
posted mailed
Andre Lehovich wrote:
(Please cc: me on replies)
The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
man pages because until recently the license
Evan Prodroumou wrote:
On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to
get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions
of the CC licenses.
Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?...
The trademark issue appears to be an issue solely with the web
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
snip
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen
| of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the
| United States of America, any litigation relating to this License
|
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Josh Triplett:
Agreed. In the text could imply right next to where you differ from
the standard, which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
non-free. Without the in the text, modifiers could simply add a
blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I'm pretty sure though,
that absent a decision from a higher court, a court can choose to hear any
case it wants to -- if that court decides to hear your case, either you
appear or you're toast. Different courts just have different rules about
what constitutes a valid
posted mailed
Evan Prodromou wrote:
NN == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NN Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
NN little bit of it which is troublesome.
Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful.
4b to the extent
Evan Prodromou wrote:
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
Me free'.
AS Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
AS not. There is no partially free or semi-free. So barely
Lex Spoon wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
What do you
posted mailed
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
I was just about to package psybnc[1], a popular irc bouncer.
A closer look into the src/ dir revealed that the author seems to have
followed the Free Software spirit by not re-inventing a lot of wheels,
but didn't pay close attention to legal
Francesco Poli wrote:
Moreover, the GPL requires that *source code* be accompanied or offered.
This POSIX license requires that *nroff source* be included.
What if I created a derivative work by
step 0) converting it from nroff to some other typesetting language
(e.g. DocBook XML,
I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h
has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission
to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs
(IMO incorrectly) and proceeded to ignore it for at least four uploads.
to
defend themselves.
This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It
only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the
choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant
being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in
http
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of
Lex Spoon wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that
you perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
Actually, as far as I can tell
posted mailed
.jareeN. wrote:
Sorry if this is a really silly/of_topic question.
It's not.
I am a LFS user and I want to use free Linux kernel for my GNU/Linux
system, by free I mean which is free from binaries and non-free code.
Does such a kernel exists ?
I mean some kind of patch.
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
reselling the game as an individual item.
Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowed to
Romain Francoise wrote:
Package: jftpgw
Version: 0.13.5-1
Severity: serious
The jftpgw package currently distributed in Debian has two license
problems:
1. The source contains a file named snprintf.c that doesn't contain any
copyright notice or license header. It appears to be
Michael Poole wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
snip
It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
it to mean.
Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic (Words mean
exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less.). I hope
that a license
Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual contention is that having some
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to GPL?
Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a
few old contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding
a credits note as required in the BSD license.
Josh Triplett wrote:
I believe the issue is that unlike patents and copyrights, unenforced
trademarks become diluted and no longer enforcable.
Terminology confusion here; dilution is a separate concept from
enforcability. Look up trademark infrignment and trademark dilution.
Indeed, an
Josh Triplett wrote:
Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
Please note that until other debian-legal participants
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
into account a bit. I've a few comments...
Thanks. You had mentioned that it would be better to word summaries in
terms of software covered by the license, rather than the license
MJ Ray wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, FSF is mostly a black box to outsiders like me.
To almost everyone.
I have
asked them questions sometimes, but the answers so far have been slow,
incomplete and/or cautious first-line responses, rather than involving
any words from the decision-makers.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100,:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
Raul Miller wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Remco Seesink wrote:
Hello,
Licening issues resolved! Thanks all.
Cheers,
Remco.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:39:00 -0400
From: Brent Ashley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Remco Seesink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Licening ibwebadmin and JSRS
Thank
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
test as written would
Branden Robinson wrote:
Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not
everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though.
Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the
following to the DFSG FAQ[2].
The Dictator Test:
A
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the right to
Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't
Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the
trademarks or trade names Apple, Apple Computer, Mac, Mac OS,
QuickTime, QuickTime Streaming Server or any other trademarks,
service marks, logos or trade names
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
posted mailed
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
First, let me try to define what I'm calling non-software:
Stop. Call it non-programs. Here, when we say software, we mean it
ain't hardware.
snip
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like
Branden Robinson wrote:
Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately.
- Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Juergen Weigert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator
Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long
enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think
of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in
some important way.
For example, how is this different
Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[...]
1. The version number will be modified as follows:
a. The first 3 components of the version number
(i.e number.number.number) will remain unchanged.
b. A new component will
Evan Prodromou wrote:
snip
It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal
as an argument. My theory at the time was that the old PC emulators'
dependence on non-free system OS ROMs (like the atari800 package) had
been fossilized into a policy that _all_ emulators
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it
with the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge
for that, then that's good enough.
I continue to assert
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't
packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no
ROM was found.
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
snip
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
one format of images, and there were no images out there in that
format, would you want to see that in Debian? What if there were
images
Lewis Jardine wrote:
snip
Emulators work perfectly correctly without software to emulate. NO$GMB
does the same thing with no image loaded that my gameboy does with no
cartridge in the slot.
It has 'no significant functionality'.
Pacifist (I assume) does the same thing with no
BIOS that a
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
data is
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
As far as I know QPL is considered an non DFSG compatible
Restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are
not DFSG-free.
found on debian-legal
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
snip
Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
exist today?
Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Three people have already replied
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
snip
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking
aloud here- what if the consideration is you promise to
Lex Spoon wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
fee; it does not
301 - 400 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
