On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's no way
for me to make XEmacs, which is FSF
that the source+patches problem itself is addressed by DFSG#4,
though obviously not in the way I would like.)
Richard Braakman
to change their licenses.
That you don't *agree* with Sven's interpretation doesn't mean you get
to accuse him of dishonesty.
Richard Braakman
-only distribution, you have to allow
this for derived works you publish as well.
Richard Braakman
designed to let the Artistic License pass. The AL says You may not
charge a fee for this Package itself and then goes on to give
permission for including it in a larger distribution.
Richard Braakman
than
the FSF does.
If you're dealing with the MySQL libraries specifically, then your
options are probably to either take them at their word or ask a
copyright lawyer.
Richard Braakman
discuss that for weeks :-)
Richard Braakman
and ours.
Richard Braakman
libchk thereby agrees to an agreement he hasn't seen yet. They're
trying to restrict use as well as distribution.
Richard Braakman
isn't free. Though it might become free if enough people
learn the language and then someone writes a new dictionary based on
what those people speak. That might be a worthwhile project! :)
Richard Braakman
of real snippets?
Richard Braakman
some bytes in the archive.
- If a snippet turns out to be problematic, we won't have to spend effort
on removing it because we already spent that effort.
- We might convince some authors to write modifiable snippets instead.
I don't see a convincing case here for removing them.
--
Richard
of Debian.
I think Richard Stallman was referring to essays such as
/usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/WHY-FREE
(emacs21-common 21.3+1-3)
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
long as this notice is preserved; alteration is not permitted.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still
to an unacceptable extreme is never
inevitable.)
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
-project.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
has a much broader idea of
Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
not quoting
anything, you're re-using some text from the Emacs manual.
A single line like this would be too small to matter, but Emacs
has thousands of thingamajigs to document.
Richard Braakman
Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.
Can you be more specific? An example perhaps?
I gave you one: the Distribution section of the Emacs manual. That's
what I was quoting from. Emacs 21.3+1-3, to be precise.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from
the replicator is invented.
... and if that happens, we're going to need a Free Food Foundation anyway.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new
licenses :(
Richard Braakman
they RESTRICT rather than PERMIT. You keep ignoring
this difference. A contract would be the only way to impose restrictions
beyond those specified by copyright law, so the shrinkwrap licensses
were examined to see if they qualified as contracts. There's no need
to examine the GPL that way.
Richard
. That got edited out of the Policy Manual by nefarious agents.
Now the Debian position is that Emacs is not important.
Richard Braakman
Section? If so, why?)
Richard Braakman
and
distribute further copies under certain conditions.
Richard Braakman
seem to be Secondary Sections. I'd like to make it a complete
list, though, so that I'll only need his attention once.
Richard Braakman
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:46:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
Um, you missed or other transfer of ownership.
I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general.
It looks very general to me, covering all transfers of ownership like
that doesn't work.
You need a public statement with many witnesses.
Richard Braakman
in the current stable release, making a
new one with the same code does indeed not intensify the problem.
Richard Braakman
in evidence is not very meaningful if that evidence
can immediately be shown to be useless. For example, by demonstrating
in court how to forge exactly that signature by downloading the
private key from a public archive and using it.
Richard Braakman
there to be quoted from. This seems to be a social effect. In theory
it's not much trouble to look up a license text and copy it into
your reply, but in practice a text seems to be discussed much more
thoroughly if it was posted in the original mail.
Richard Braakman
source code even if
you only intend to use a modification privately.
None of this might matter because as far as I can tell, 2.1(a)
grants enough permissions to render the rest of the license
meaningless.
I don't think the MPL was ever properly reviewed here :(
Richard Braakman
and run a marathon?
Richard Braakman
(again, minus testing delay).
Richard Braakman
on it, what will they say? First
they'll say Terminus, of course, but if you then ask and more
generally? I suspect most will say software.
I suspect they will NOT say software, manuals, graphics, sound effects,
and digitized speech. They'll include all that in software.
Richard Braakman
over time. Do you still see no potential for enhancement?
The FSF is in the privileged position of being able to change
these sections when they need to be changed, and they're claiming
that no-one else will ever need to.
Richard Braakman
means later versions as
defined in GPL v2.
Richard Braakman
.)
The returned mail you're getting is for the same reason: the
virus spreads (from someone else's machine) with your address
in its headers, and confused mail servers try to bounce it
back to you.
Richard Braakman
people to convince.
If you get impatient, I suggest collecting some of the FAQ-like
documents that were posted and referenced here (Nathaniel's was
pretty good), and turning those into a single document for new
people to read.
(I'd do it myself if I weren't too lame.)
Richard Braakman
that hype.
Richard Braakman
and in their titles. Section numbers or the
equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
it says unaltered in their text and in their titles. It says nothing
about preserving formatting or markup.
Richard Braakman
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Richard Braakman
enemies, the ones who want to take the
products of the human mind and sell then like sausages :)
Generic free content freedoms should probably apply to things like
musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell
for that.
Richard Braakman
of these manuals already under the GFDL in woody?
Richard Braakman
with some spelling errors fixed, you
definitely need the source.
(I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that
translations and summaries are all you'll want to do with documentation?)
Richard Braakman
is not required to print an announcement.)
Richard Braakman
substantiate that? I don't remember any such ridicule.
Richard Braakman
establish that there is source or compiled work, and *then* apply
the guidelines for source or compiled works to it.
The Emacs manual has clear source and binary forms. What do you think
makeinfo does? If you want to modify it, do you patch the info files
or the texinfo files?
Richard Braakman
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider free.
Richard Braakman
approximates my opinion.
Part 2. Status of Respondent
Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true.
[ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
=== CUT HERE ===
Richard Braakman
pgpK3B0RMd74Y.pgp
Description
very personal
opinion about the original version. And here I thought it was
very personal :) Why would you require this?
Richard Braakman
to think that my packages contained
just software :)
I'll do the Debian Free Menu Entry Guidelines, and I can help with
the Debian Free Sound Effect Guidelines. Does anyone want to take
some of the others? We have a lot of work ahead.
Richard Braakman
-200110/msg00126.html
Richard Braakman
, without
interfering with the work's use in situations where the preferred form
changes.
Richard Braakman
there is between the cases
I named, it might be worthwhile to find out what the author
finds objectionable about commercial adventure game collections.
It might be possible to isolate just that. Is he assuming
that all such collections will be binary-only, for example?
Richard Braakman
clause,
does that make the package non-free?
Note that we've discussed a similar clause in PHP-Nuke, but that
one referenced the GPL, clause 2c, so the issues are different.
Richard Braakman
that of
people who might be well meaning but incompetent.
You sound a bit like the author of qmail :-) He's concerned about
what well-meaning but incompetent people might do with his software,
too.
Richard Braakman
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:38:37PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
Such support is, however, disabled in this package because enabling it would
violate the DMCA and possibly other laws.
Is this a claim we want to make? I thought it hadn't been settled yet.
Richard Braakman
create an exact, working duplicate of a DVD without breaking CSS,
does it effectively control access?
Richard Braakman
to save keystrokes and write
just (c), then don't come crying to me if you don't get
punitive damages :-)
Richard Braakman
been the 'chief' of the FSF,
this is still possible ;-)
Not in the usual way, since RMS has promised not to reproduce.
But he could still do the Roman thing and adopt an heir.
Richard Braakman
refer to a large variety of digitally
stored data as software. (For example, does the MirrorMagic package
contain software, documentation, sounds and graphics? Or is the
whole thing just software?)
Richard Braakman
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:15:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious
.
Richard Braakman
think 2(d) reflects what people already do in practice. It may even
dispel some of the misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding the
GPL, by making it clear that this alternative is NOT allowed for
commercial distribution.
Richard Braakman
for the author in its user interface.
Debian has also considered those to be non-free, though a similar
requirement to put an advertisement in accompanying materials
(such as the BSD license required) was accepted.
Richard Braakman
the resolution of the Stabs Types and Stabs Sections
Invariant sections in the gdbint manual, which were fixed in the same
time frame.)
I'm surprised that you have forgotten.
Richard Braakman
about
the GFDL, and was corrected soon afterward.
Richard Braakman
hovering over them, and similar
abuses of the content provider's reputation and artistic integrity.
To the best of my knowledge, the X server still lacks this important
functionality.
Hint: do not reply to this message. :-P
Huh? What?
--
Richard Braakman
to troll, v.: to explore
looking for NPL-licensed
ones, and all the ones I found were triple-licensed NPL/GPL/LGPL.
I didn't do the scripting work needed for a thorough scan, though.
Richard Braakman
to in V.1 is about distribution of modified
versions; it also contains the copyleft clauses.)
The NPL makes me want to add a License must not be overly verbose
clause to the DFSG...
Richard Braakman
with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2.
Version 1.1 is problematic with translations.
Richard Braakman
punitive damages because they considered
the corporation to be willfully putting its customers at risk.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America has a page about the case:
http://www.atlanet.org/consumermediaresources/tier3/press_room/facts/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
Richard
is so implementation-specific
that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think
this is a significant restriction on modification.
Richard Braakman
files using DirectSound
// buffers.
//
// Copyright (c) 1999 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
//-
I think we shouldn't get anywhere NEAR this package until it's had
a careful license review.
Richard Braakman
that there are no aesthetic
components to the way TeX lays out documents. I don't see this
critical difference that makes Invariant Sections necessary for
documentation but leaves the GPL just fine for code.
Richard Braakman
.)
- Invariant Sections can become outdated, and there's no way to
update them. Even adding a note saying they're obsolete is
not allowed.
We also need a point-by-point rebuttal of the FSF's response page
about the GFDL feedback, but that's not something I'm going to
think about today.
Richard
manual
lists The GNU Manifesto, Distribution and GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
as Invariant Sections. There are also some smaller manuals that
list none.
That's 930 lines of material, about 46 kB.
Richard Braakman
details will suddenly become interested when packages
like glibc-doc are affected. This probably means all of the
issues will be rehashed on debian-devel, so it will be good
to have such a FAQ available. (I'm not advocating this
rehashing, I'm just speaking from past experience :)
Richard
.
I think this has some similarity to the possibility of removing the
no-validation option, and undoing such a change will be even
easier than restoring obfuscated source.
Richard Braakman
[1] When I saw the code for the BSD glob() function, I suspected that
this has already happened.
IIRC it collided with US
export restrictions at some point.
I think the end result of your scenario is that only B is restricted.
Richard Braakman
Anthony's assumptions
and close the ASP loophole indirectly.
Richard Braakman
it ASP :-)
that made it possible to make GPLed programs proprietary, would
it then become unfree according to this principle?
Richard Braakman
to offer sources and binaries together and be done with it, even if
the recipient elects to take only the binaries.
So yes, You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your
binaries is onerous.
Richard Braakman
Perspective)
It has a paragraph about this. Apparently LZW has been patented
multiple times, a tribute to the skill and thoroughness of the
patent office.
Richard Braakman
project.
Richard Braakman
.
a) Move it to non-free
b) Stay at main
c) I don't know
I think it should be moved to non-free if you're willing to maintain
it there, and otherwise removed completely.
Richard Braakman
CREDITS file,
and grepped around a bit for 'Copyright', and it seems to contain a
lot of code copyrighted by other people, and it was based on
Thatware, a GPLed project with a long list of contributors.
Richard Braakman
don't
have to spend time figuring them out before using the program or
helping with development, and they make it easier to share code
between your project and others.
Richard Braakman
that meets the DFSG in every detail, but is still non-free?
Debian would refuse such a license. I asked Russell Nelson what OSI
would do in such a case, but I never received an answer.
Richard Braakman
that it is; if
nothing else, this avoids unnecessary lawsuits.
If the GPL is involved, we should also make sure that the copyright
holder isn't mixing the creatively-GPL code with real GPL code from
other sources.
Richard Braakman
that the GPL 2(c) and proposed 2(d) requirements create
significant technical problems in some contexts, and that for
that reason they make the software less free.
Richard Braakman
[1] Kannel is a free WAP and SMS gateway. See http://www.kannel.org/
. It will also be a useful source of
inspiration when we get around to proposing changes to the DFSG.
Richard Braakman
also kept slaves. Doing so was acceptable according to
their culture and laws, but we still think it was wrong.
The difference is precisely that we consider freedom to be a
natural right, while copyright is not.
Richard Braakman
...) according to the laws of the dominant
society of the age? ;)
No, you forgot the crucial distinction between this age and that age :-)
Richard Braakman
. IIRC, the specifics are that the
US government can not claim copyright under US law, but this would
not prevent them from claiming it in other jurisdictions.
Thus, it would be good to get the license clarified anyway.
Richard Braakman
, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to
the modified files, where everywhere else it speaks of modified
work or modified program.
Richard Braakman
that the software must acquire
this agreement when it's run, then that's a restriction on
distribution of derived works.
In other words, a click-wrap license may be able to meet these
guidelines individually, but not both at once.
Richard Braakman
threats as and when we become
aware of them.
Richard Braakman
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
