On 2003-11-26, Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, maybe that is up to the courts to decide. It doesn't look like a
copyleft to me, but that's just my first impression. I'm used to this
definition from the FSF site:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software
On 2003-10-25, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:20:26PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
Maybe I should add that some files in latex2html are GPL'ed, which
possibly forces us / the maintainer to apply the GPL to the whole
package.
If some files are GPL, then
On 2003-10-23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here
may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion
is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
Hmm? debian-legal has frequently accepted
On 2003-10-23, Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(The fact that end users might use the software for something illegal is
irrelevant to whether or not it can be included in Debian. One can use
mixmaster for industrial espionage, john to brute-force UNIX password files
for the purpose of
On 2003-10-23, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe courts have drawn a legal distinction between products or
code that has a reasonable legal purpose and code that has no such
legal purpose.
In the case of MSN, would it be legal to run
On 2003-10-13, Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three
years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book
under the GPL, with the
On 2003-10-13, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to
provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the
book (without providing anything
On 2003-10-09, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
as enforced.
Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be
willing to state
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten,
harass and terrorize everyyone who will ever
On 2003-10-02, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
In the interests of furthering the discussion, can I suggest limiting
the discussion further,
On 2003-09-30, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mentioning that this is
no longer true.
I can imagine many of your other examples of snippets becoming
outdated in similar ways.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which
does not yet have an official translation
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
Unless you can actually point to
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
* If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them anyway,
simply because we don't have them in a free form?
Hi. I think my first reply to this mail didn't
On 2003-09-29, Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Fedor Zuev wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or
.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-29, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
I am neither a developer nor
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we decide to go on a crusade against them, it would be a really big
deal for a couple reasons:
- Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
- This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
- Scanning our
in Japanese where we do
just that. Note that a translation is a derived work and would be
illegal if the README were under the standard all rights reserved
copyright.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- No other free software organization eschews such snippets.
I disagree with the premises of those two, as well. For instance: no
other free software organization edits out the non-free fonts from
XFree86 or the non-free firmware
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP
binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case?
AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute
pristine kernel sources: the
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was
designed to deliver
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it
On 2003-09-27, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zedor Fuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable.
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to
the original form too,
On 2003-09-17, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is: will requiring those markings make the license
non-free?
I think it's more likely to be considered free if you require
functionality rather than specific wording. Compare this clause from
the GPL:
c) If the modified
On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
(without
, or deciding which bits on the CDs the
DFSG should apply to.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-11, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we were to elect a person to serve in this role, I suggest we permit
people to self-nominate for a period, and then the Developers can elect
one using the procedure described in the Debian Constitution. ...
Depending on the
On 2003-09-11, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am hoping that I can deal with both organizations _as_
organizations.
I think this very premise is shaky. No
On 2003-09-10, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing that you feel all of my questions to RMS have been
rhetorical. They haven't been. For instance, I asked him whether
Debian ceasing to distribute non-free software (and not providing
reference to it in the installer, and
On 2003-09-10, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
than BSD in that respect.)
Then use the GPL,
On 2003-09-08, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you asked the glibc team (the actual upstream) what they think?
Or the FSF? I would start that way.
I sent a short note to the FSF on Sunday (as a private individual,
interested in Debian) setting out the situation and asking
licenses that claim to be leases
are actually valid remains a question for the court. OTOH, a license
like the GPL does not claim to be a lease in any way; I don't see how
it could be interpreted that way.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-06, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient
authority to be bound by the contents of a document. The Electronic
Communications Act 2000 extended these to include
. And
the situation may well continue to get better, with the possibility of
new GRs to banish non-free further.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
anywhere. Svaha!
#
This cavalier attitude seems rather dangerous. Is this file at all
used anymore? Is there any action necessary?
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
documentation, you should make sure to include an example of some
license that would be judged differently under your proposed free
documentation guidelines and the DFSG. (Do you have such an example
in mind already?)
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
. Status of Respondent
Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true.
[ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
--Dylan Thurston
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK. How about a GR saying We will not accept anything non-free in
main, except for the preamble of the GPL. ...
...
I bet a lot of people would be satisfied by the following more general
statement as a GR. This seems to correspond to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jakob Bohm wrote:
Here is my classification, which handles this better:
A piece of information, whether in analog, digital or other
form, is a program if it is intended to directly control the
actions of a computer, other than by simply holding a pure
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the
technical functionality of the work, whether the work
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mathieu Roy wrote:
... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with
an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and
no other restrictions would be free software, although
inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Hood wrote:
I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other
restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't
seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed
out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and
'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things.
I believe that many Debian
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam Warner wrote:
Branden, perhaps the term information disclosure would better suit
you/us than privacy? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
mandate information disclosure of anything but the information forming a
distributed and derived work.
But
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Branden Robinson wrote:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works written by others.
... The point is that my usage of your Free Software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Hood wrote:
1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
source code), if applicable,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
... But B needn't disclose this offer; B could intentionally make
itself ineligible to transfer A's offer by conducting its own
distribution commercially; ...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under the terms of the GPL, B
is not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicolas Kratz wrote:
OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
packages that they redistribute. ...
I disagree with his position (I believe that Freedom is vitally
important for many things, including software and political essays),
but I see his point of view.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
, while DFSG 3 is stated more broadly.)
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:01:12 -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Frankly, this whole episode saddens me tremendously. I have the
utmost respect for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
know that you were out there,
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
I use Emacs, but if part of Emacs has become not free software, Debian
must not hesitate to act to fix it. It's a shame and massively annoying,
but it's consistent with what Debian says in the social contract. Worst
On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:50:28 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works. Then they could be made
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
Hi,
According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions
Martin Schr??der wrote:
On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
are not. Computer Modern might be trademarked (I don't know
advice on whether this statement actually places the
files in the public domain? Or does it make more sense to approach
Knuth directly? If we do approach Knuth, the letter should be
carefully worded.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
pgpdiA0RxI0W9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
However, use of the names is restricted:
This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
whether this statement (and what follows)
that he gives conditions as preferences, rather than legal
requirements.)
[Background: we currently ship these manuals in tetex-doc, without
source.]
Best,
Dylan Thurston
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:04:05 -0400
Subject: Re
modification? I note that the
Makefile doesn't seem to have a license; do I need to ask about that?
From the current package, that seems to be the one file that we actually
modify.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
pgpPAOPJopKHC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
many additional options for future
document migrations (none of us really expect dvi, ps, pdf, etc., to be the
final word).
These are good reasons for wanting source in general, independent of any need
for modification.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
pgpoGnynpMxKp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
) the source no longer seems to be available. I don't
know what conditions the source code was originally released under.
What do people think?
Does anyone know anyone who uses this driver/knows where to get the
source?
Best,
Dylan Thurston
- Forwarded message from Dylan Thurston [EMAIL
documentation may fail DFSG 2, about source code issuses.
For instance, many (most) of the documents included the tetex-base
package fail DFSG 2, and many don't have explicit licenses.
Bug #131191. I'm sure there are many more such problems throughout
Debian.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
couldn't
find a copyright statement for this file; what is its provenance?
Please do not distribute the package in its current state with Woody.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux petunia 2.4.16 #2 Fri Dec 21 16:12:08 EST 2001
?
Thanks,
Dylan Thurston
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:17:27PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
want to process. It seems that the standard program for dealing with
the archives, lha, is non-free. I found a web page
73 matches
Mail list logo
