Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
removal from a product.
That's true in the US, too; http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew112.php
says:
In order to
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the Department of Transportation need to make stoplight software
generally available?
While I do think government software should always be Free Software and
distributed to the public, I would not really classify that case as
direct
The international copyright treaties, if I am not mistaken, only
grant copyrights to works which are capable of being subject to
copyright in their 'home countries'.
It's not that simple. The US, for one, recognizes copyrights on
works under copyright under US law that aren't in copyright
What request ? And i doubt you can prove to the judge you ever made that
request to me.
I bought a commerical on cable asking for modifiers to send me their
changes. I believe he was watching at that time. Then, since you have
no right to stay silent in civil court, the judge can turn to you
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
be judging this. It's much safer to interpret a license literally and
slightly broadly, then to try and guess what is and isn't legally
not wanting to give the modification back to upstream and thus
to the community at large.
I'm happy giving back to the community at large. I'm not happy
giving back to anyone who demands the capability to take my
modifications proprietary, especially not if they won't give
me the same options.
after you (plural and impersonal you) all dragged me into this
mud pit
I've have watched many extended arguments, and participated in
many myself. When I get involved in an argument like you have,
it's a clear sign I have too much time on my hands or I'm
avoiding work. If you are concerned
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then
another vote, since people
gcc is LGPL.
Diego
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's wrong. Some of the
libraries may be LGPL, but the compiler itself is very much GPL,
to the point that RMS doesn't want people adding interfaces that
might make it easier to use a GCC frontend by itself without
linking to GCC.
Stephen Frost writes:
Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to,
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
But the TrueType files
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot
of difference
On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote in response:
cough Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act cough
No; the MMCEA (or
How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
their grand scheme.
Initially, back in 50s-60s-70s all software was free software
I've read that while programs may not have been covered by
copyright, they were frequently covered by contracts promising
the wrath of the selling company if there were copies made.
This lead us to the important point. Free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Initially, back in 50s-60s-70s all software
was free software. Proprietary software come into being only after
computer programs was copyrighted. Computer programs was copyrighted
relatively late, in 1976 year in USA, in 1991 year in Russia and
maybe even
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out and showed it to a friend (who was less
impressed.)
it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
form for modification has been lost.
The preferred form for modification is not the form we'd like to
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not,
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past).
So it's okay to ignore
RMS writes:
However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG
that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial
reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for
programs.
This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:44:41PM -0500, D. Starner wrote:
I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or
right-to-left). The standard tells me.
There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information
like this. Run locate UnicodeData -- I
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
crucial.
But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license
for his program or
I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or
right-to-left). The standard tells me.
There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information
like this. Run locate UnicodeData -- I have 5 copies from Debian packages.
It's not terribly human-readable,
If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack
the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of real
freedom.
I fail to see how this differs from an invariant section. (We can't
add a change
The fact that you're talking about a hypothetical example decades away
suggests that this is not a major issue. But we can consider the
issue anyway.
In this case, part of the reason for using a hypothetical is the fact
the only people using extended Invariant Sections is the FSF, and it's
It adds some practical inconvenience, but practically speaking the
magnitude is not great, so there's no reason not to do it.
Let's say I write a (GPL) compiler for Perl 2045, and someone writing a
(GPL) sample implemenation of Fortran 2045 wants to borrow my regex code.
They can do so; the
27 matches
Mail list logo
